David Barrett-Lennard wrote:

Jesse Mazer wrote,

> Isn't there a fundamental problem deciding what it means for a given
> simulated object to implement some other computation?

Yes, but does this problem need to be solved?   I have no problem with
the idea that some "physical object" (in one computation) can be
"interpreted" in all sorts of ways - depending on how you map it.  Does
it matter if there exists a (weird) mapping between a rock and a
universe with conscious inhabitants?  The universe doesn't depend on the
rock for its existence so who cares!

- David

I think it would matter if you want to find the measure of various types of observers/observer-moments--you need to know which ones are instantiated more often in the set of all possible computations (to address this you might also need a measure on all possible computations). Without some type of measure, there is no way to solve the "white rabbit problem".


Expand your wine savvy and get some great new recipes at MSN Wine. http://wine.msn.com

Reply via email to