On 23 Aug 2005, at 18:08, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Bruno,

How is this the case? YD requires that the mind, or some token of subjective awareness, can be faithfully represented in terms of TM,

I could agree, despite some ambiguity. (In particular no first person can *construct* such an association, it is why YD asks for a bet).

or some other equivalent that can be implemented in a finite number of steps in a physically realizable machine.

No. YD does not presuppose the existence of any "physically realizable machine".

It is my belief that such TM are equivalent to Boolean algebras which have been proven to not be able to faithfully represent any QM system having more than 2 dimensions.

OK, but YD asks only that the mind can be implemented in some (classical or quantum) digital machine. And we know that all digital machine (classical or quantum) can be runned on a classical (and immaterial) Turing machine.

A QM system, or more to the point here, its logical equivalent can embed at least one Complete Boolean Algebra. The converse is not possible exept for the trivial case.

That is true for embedding which preserves truth values and some algebraic structure, but not for more general form of embedding. In any case it is not relevant for the discussion given that YD asks only for your (classical or quantum) state to be implemented in some turing machine.

Unless the Multiverse is restricted to 2 dimensions, how does your claim *not* fall apart?

I really don't see why. Are you saying here that, unlike Godfrey, you think YD is incompatible with even QM without collapse?



Reply via email to