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
> 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
Oh, and "Non-branching programme" is close to being a cotnradiction in
>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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at