Charles Goodwin wrote:

>Quick reply as usual 'cos I'm at work! :-)
>
>But surely the level of substitution would be non-fundamental, i.e. above 
>the level of matter (Whatever that is or isn't) and hence
>would be a *simulation* of a person? I don't understand how one survives 
>through the substitution (or perhaps I've misunderstood how
>the substitution is done) ?

Quick reply too, 'cos many things of life! :)   (at work too).

The way the substitution is done depend of the level. 
1) Exemple of high level: each neuron is substituted by a silicon
computer emulating the neurons.
2) Exemple of very low level: implementation of DeWitt Wheeler equation
of the multiverse (you know H = 0, :-) in Fortran.
My reasoning does not depend of the level because the UD emulates
any thing emulable. But the thought experiment are more simple with high
level.

>
>Does this have anything to do with the multiverse being thought of as a 
>the output of a huge (but simple) computation?

Schmidhuber would perhaps agree here, but I don't.
Not really. The multiverse emerges from the possible point of view
of machines generates by computational histories.
"You" are at once all "Charles Goodwin" which have not yet differentiated.
(or multiplied in orthogonal alternatives computational history).
I am closer to Deutsch and QM.


>I guess I'm revealing my fundamental ignorance here...


Normally the more you will see what I am pointing to, the more
you will ignorant. But comp makes ignorance productive.
Ignorance aquires a geometry. 
>

>PS no you're not dreaming, I did say that (perhaps more on the basis of 
>"The Tao is Silent" and "5000BC" than "Forever Undecided")

Did Smullyan realise how close is "Forever Undecided" to
"The Tao is Silent" and "5000BC"? I ask myself.


Bruno

Reply via email to