Le 01-avr.-06, à 19:18, 1Z a écrit :

>> All right but sometime map are continuously or computationally 
>> embedded
>> in the territory, and so there is a fixed point where the point of the
>> map coincide with the point of the territory: typically yhe indexical
>> "where you are", both with respect to the territory and its mapped
>> representation.
> That's still isomorphism. What I mean is that there is no
> problem in the concept that matter can be conscious.

????? Are you saying the hard problem of *consciousness* is solved ?????
????? Are saying the hard problem of *matter* is solved ?????
Err... have you references---I mean are you thinking about some precise 
solution, or are you following a common materialist dicto according to 
which there is no problem?

> The
> problem is in finding consicousness in 3rd-person descriptions of
> matter.

Indeed. Or to find 3rd-person descriptions of matter in first person 
(hopefully plural) coherent stable bets (the other way round is 
obligatory once you assume comp-like hyp).

>>>> Actually you could perhaps explain how do you think a machine is 
>>>> able
>>>> to distinguish a material (physical) reality from an immaterial
>>>> (arithmetical) reality.
>>> The same way I can.
>> Perhaps.
>> Perhaps you can. But I can't take this assertion as a (third person)
>> argument. Because with comp the old dream metaphysical argument extend
>> itself on arithmetical truth, so that I suspect you cannot pretend you
>> can and remain at the same time a sound entity.
> The dream/solipsism only works if you can account for the realtively
> constrained nature of perceived reality.

First, please don't confuse solipsism and idealism. Second see my work 
for a testable account of perceived reality from numbers and relative 
computational states alone. To be sure the white rabbit problem is not 
yet solved (to be sure it is not really solved in quantum mechanics 
too, even if there some big progress have been made through the 
renormalization theory).

>> Indeed. The point is that with comp, what can be observed emerges from
>> what can be thought.
>> Not by humans, but by universal machines (or sub-universal one,  but
>> don't want be technic here).
> Hmmm. Maybe.
>>> Therefore, there are
>>> constraints -- matter, laws, etc.
>> Any sound theorem prover machine can already prove that in order to
>> singularize any observable token related to her, she will need an
>> infinity of such constraints.
> I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't regard constraints as
> being chosen by observers; observers are as subject to the gravity the
> same as anything else.

If you believe in absolute QM (or just assume absolute QM I eman QM 
without wave collapse) then, obviously, observers are subject to the 
SWE, and are multiplied or differentiated continuously.
If you take the assumption of comp, it is easy to justify an apparently 
bigger set of possible differentiation. Then number theoretical 
constraints add many non trivial constraints of what an observer should 
observe, and although gravity is still a quite complex open problem in 
that approach, I don't see any obstacle in the fact that gravity will 
applied on the observers. And if that is the case we will at least  
know why---which is not the case if you postulate gravity from 
Obviously I don't take observation nor prediction as explanation. Of 
course observations are necessary to confirm theories and/or deeper 

>> Observation can only be partial filtration (by comp). Physical
>> realities emerge from coherence conditions on machine's dreams 
>> overlap;
>> where dream =  "computation" as "seen" from some first-person (plural)
>> point of view, and then, the emergence is related to the way  those
>> point-of-views glue with each others. Theoretical computer science and
>> modal logic makes this precise and testable (see my url if you are
>> interested).
>> It seems you believe that the realist modal or other arithmetical
>> realist inflations of possibilities are unsolvable without invoking a
>> sort of ad-hoc god, a *physical* universe,
> As I am forever pointing out, all theories have some ad-hoc element.

Is that a theorem? Also the "primitive stuffy universe" as an ad hoc 
element seems to be a little gross to me.

The point is only this: even without occam razor, it is impossible to 
believe in both computationalism *and* in substantialism (the doctrine 
that there exists a non reducible (primitive) stuff.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to