Le 12-mai-06, à 09:41, Kim Jones a écrit :
> I almost understand this. Just expand a little
> On 11/05/2006, at 9:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Schmidhuber did leave the list by refusing explicitly the first-third
>> person distinction (which explain why his great programmer does not
>> need to dovetail).
I guess it is a delicate point, a key point though, which overlaps the
ASSA/RSSA distinction (that is: the Absolute Self Sampling Assumption
versus the Relative Self Sampling Assumption).
If you identify a "conscious first person history" with a "third person
describable computation", it can be argued that an explanation for
physics can be given by Bayesian sort of anthropic reasoning based on
some universal probability distribution like Hall Finney's
Kolmogorovian UDist. Note tat this approach relies also on Church
Thesis. Here somehow the TOE will be a winning little program. I agree
that this would hunt away the third person white rabbits.
Despite the obvious appeal for such an approach, once we take into
account the fact that we cannot know in which computations we belong,
and that we are not aware of the delay of a universal dovetailer to
rich the computationally accessible computational states, then we
realize that we need to take into account the fact that almost all
programs which generate us are *big*. Our consciousness is somehow
distributed in the whole of the comp-platonia (a non comp structure!).
Here somehow the TOE could still be given by a little program, but it
needs a justification how it can win an infinite "battle" with the big
programs, and eliminate a vaster collection of first person white
rabbits. (BTW we are very close to Descartes fifth meditation if you
know. His "malin génie" generates first person hallucinations). All
this follows from the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument).
From empiry it could be that the winning little program describes some
quantum universal dovetailer, or an universal unitary transformation,
modular functor (topological quantum computer), etc. but all what I try
to explain is that such "little program" must be justified as being
invariant for some notion of first person (plural) observable taking
into account the infinities of infinite computations (once we make
explicit the comp (or weaker) assumption. By identifying first and
third person experience we need only one successful computation as an
explanation. By being aware of the 1-3 distinction we have to dovetail
on all computations and (re)defined "reality" as a relative measure on
the possible ways of glueing consistent first person experience; if
not, I'm afraid the "mind body problem" remains under the rug.
Hope that help a little bit. Don't hesitate to ask more explanations.
Just be patient if I don't answer so quickly.
Some more technical points will be made clearer through the deepening
of diagonalization, perhaps.
Critics from ASSA people are welcome!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at