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

## Advertising

Hi Bruno,How is this the case? YD requires that the mind, or some tokenof 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 numberof 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 algebraswhich have been proven to not be able to faithfully represent anyQM 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 equivalentcan embed at least one Complete Boolean Algebra. The converse isnot 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 yourclaim *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?`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/