Joel Dobrzelewski wrote: >Good idea. Let me just say that I believe the world is deterministic. > >But in my mind, this is not incompatible with freewill.
I agree. >Though technically, I can >only WANT one thing at a time. Y're lucky! >But I realize most people do not feel this way, and they see determinism as >incompatible with freewill. So that's why I call it an illusion. It seems >like we are making decisions, OK, but be carefull with the terme. You are talking about the illusion of a link between free will and undeterminacy. I agree with you (essentially). >but in reality, there is no alternatives. I would say that in reality there is all alternatives ! And you have a real, although fuzzy and necessarily partial, control on your surroundings by some aptitude to chose among alternatives. But ok, perhaps we share not exactly the vocabulary. We will see. >> I should have you ask this before, if your TOE is a cellular >> automata, what does execute it? > >Nothing. Cellular automata simply exist - in the abstract sense - just like >the number 3, or the concept of the circle. These objects are merely "out >there" for all to discover, and reason about. OK. >As I've said, I think this world is just a game. New games await us when >this one is over. But this idea should not be too tightly connected to >cellular automata. It is only my own personal philosophy and not part of >the science, per se. Why stopping doing science when you are confronted with fundamental question? Strange behavior, imo, especially for someone searching a TOE. >>>Qualia are internal states. >> >> Right! (imo). But "internal" in which sense? Would you agree that it >> is related with the first person viewpoint. > >I'm not sure. OK. >>> Ok, thank you Bruno. I think I understand the terminology now >>> (first and third person viewpoints), but I fail to see the >>> importance of it all. >> >> If you want I open a new thread. I send you a post with one >> question. Normally if you are computationalist you will answer yes. >> The same for the second post, etc. At the end you will understand (or >> at least to have an idea) the importance of it all. OK? > >Ok, sounds fun! (I didn't quite understand the UDA - universal dovetailer >argument). What is the question? (yes, start a new thread if you prefer) I will. >> Let us take your cellular automata which generates everything. You >> will be generated at some "moment" (where the moment can be defined >> in the universal cellular automata terms). The problem is that you >> will be generated infinitely often, and your average "next" first >> person point of view depends on all the consistent computational >> continuations generated by your universal automata. > >Hmmm... > >Yes, you are generated infinitely often, but those copies are not (usually) >in communication with one another. In general, each one has its own history >and own future. I don't see how there is any synthesis of these >experiences. They are (again, usually) independent. They are (usually) independent from a 3 person pov, but from the possible first person point of view it is much less obvious. One of the goal of the UDA is to show exactly this. So, ok, I will start a UDA thread one step at a time. See you. Bruno
