Bruno Marchal wrote:|
Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit :
It seems at first glance that a 0 particle + 0 force + a Turing Machine is vastly more complicated than 1 particle and 1 force. However, John makes many other assumptions regarding space, time and how the particle and the force operate. The Turing machine model does not use a "real Turing Machine." Instead it employs a "fictitious" one so in the end it may be simpler.
As I understand it, a fictitious conscious Turing machine emerges out of the Plenitude as an image emerges out of a Rorschach image when observed by a conscious observer. In the case of the Turing machine, the conscious observer is the conscious Turing machine itself which pulls itself up by its own bootstraps. The Turing Machine does not "really" (objectively) exist. It only exists in the mind of the Turing machine. Here is a self referential situation in line with the thread "Re: MWI and Topos theory." All existence become subjective and has a first person perspective.
The advantage of this approach is that it tackles the Mind-Body problem up-front. The ingredients do not include any particle, force, space or time. These can be derived later. Even the Turing Machine is fictitious: it only has a subjective existence but must be conscious. The "only" real requirement is the Plenitude. "Ay, there's the rub," as Hamlet said. What is the Plenitude?
- RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of ... George Levy
- Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theor... Bruno Marchal