Bruno wrote on  November 14, 2005 2:57 PM

> The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) *is* the proof that physics
> is reducible to computer science. The proof is informal, non
> mathematical, yet complete in itself.

>  I got indeed sort of quantum
> logics, and I take this as a confirmation (not a proof) of comp. The
> results has recently been generalized for large portion of non-comp!

> > But it does rather make
> > the presupposition that physics and all its applications are to be
> > grounded in old quasirationalist values.
>
> This is debatable. To put it roughly, I show that if comp is true,
> then we must backtrack 2300 years of Aristotelian Naturalism.
> In short Plato is correct and Aristotle is wrong, as far as we
> look on their conception of reality.

> My
> point is really that physics is a branch of computer science, or
> even just number theory.

I think I see what you are saying here.


> In what sense does quantum suicide eliminate
> individual consciousness? I thought the point is that it does not.

There are by now a lot of papers on that subject, and many views.
I am trying to write up a further step at this time.


> >  There are so many intermediary conditions between life
> > and death  that exist or are manmade.
>
>
> Yes, but you need to be conscious of them in some way to talk about,
> and in that case they cannot be 1-death or 1-loss-of-consciousness
> (by definition!).
>

I see what you are saying, I think. I do think that a more detailed
consideration of the fine structure of individual cases might be
necessary to be sure of that. And I am still very dubious about
Tegmark's original argument anyway, though it has now had its form
varied in many ways - to cases of multiple suicide, quick suicide
etc. etc. A lot still to be done.

> > There is a lot more that can be written on the topic. Some claim a
> > similar effect occurs with 'lucid dreaming' as well.
>
>
>
> Note that "Conscience et M├ęcanisme" contains a full chapter on lucid
> dreaming. But in the more recent work I have substituted it for the
> use of video (a-la "matrix") in the reasoning because the notion of
> lucid dreaming is not yet well understood by the average scientists.
> And this despite lucid dreaming has been clarified and confirmed
> experimentally by the famous (independent) experiments of Hearne
> and LaBerge.
>

I'll read it then, though I would have been happier with an English
rendition.

I have found that many psychological phenomena like 'lucid dreaming'
tend to disappear when you look at them in detail, but then reappear
when someone else studies them. The case that I usually refer to on
that is the Perky effect which has a long and varied history. (I think
it
is now out of favour but the point is that results are not as clear
cut
sometimes as we would like. The same is often true in very important
physics experiments but these are usually a little easier to clarify).
But
bearing that fact in mind, I can see why you went over to a video
version, but I am far from sure that that may not be an unfortunate
many to few mapping, which may bring omissions etc.Because
obviously the video camera is not directly equivalent to the human
eye and brain.




Reply via email to