Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Peter Jones writes: > > > > Is it possible that we are currently actors in a single, deterministic, > > > non-branching > > > computer program, with the illusion of free will and if-then contingency > > > in general > > > being due to the fact that we don't know the details of how the program > > > will play > > > out? > > > > Lots of things are possible. The question is what to believe. > > True, but I thought you were saying that such a thing was incompatible with > consciousness, > and I see no reason to believe that.
There are a lot of prolems with what you are saying. I don't think it is possible to get dynamism out of stasis, and I don't think it is possible to get qualia out of mathematical structues Oh, and "Non-branching programme" is close to being a cotnradiction in terms. >You could replace "computer program" with "machine" > and have a description of the universe. Really ? What would "machine" mean in that sentence ? And according to which theory of physics ? > Actually, you could leave out "non-branching" as well: > the MWI is branching but deterministic, and still leaves room for first > person indeterminacy. There are problems with MWI as a purely physical theory. > Stathis Papaioannou > _________________________________________________________________ > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
