Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
> 
> 
>>>If you include the computer's 
>>>data in the program then it becomes an inputless system, a self-contained 
>>>simulation. If 
>>>you include yourself, the rock and everything else that might interact with 
>>>it in one system 
>>>you have a self-contained, inputless universe. Both the closed simulation 
>>>and the universe 
>>>(in the absence of CI type quantum randomness) are at least as deterministic 
>>>as what we 
>>>normally call a recording, despite all the conditionals, because it is 
>>>rather more likely that I 
>>>will change a recording than that God will intervene to push rocks around or 
>>>provide 
>>>computers with miraculous inputs.
>>
>>Right.  So within this simulation you may say there are intelligent 
>>subsystems by 
>>making a somewhat arbitrary cut between subsystem and environment.  This 
>>still seems 
>>different from a recording though.  The recording is only of the paths 
>>actually 
>>taken, whereas looking at the program you can see other paths that could have 
>>been 
>>taken - just as you say the rock computes because you *could have* pushed it 
>>the 
>>other way.
> 
> 
> In a deterministic universe, saying that things could have turned out 
> differently had initial 
> conditions or physical laws been different is analogous to saying the sound 
> coming out of the 
> speakers could have been different if the grooves on the record or the 
> equalisation in the 
> preamp stage had been different.

That still sounds like a cheat to me.  If it's recording of the universe it's 
an 
inputless program, since there is no "environment" outside the universe.  But 
when 
you invoke the analogy of the record, you conceive the grooves and the initial 
conditions as input.

> 
> 
>>And in anycase  there does seem to be quantum randomness.
> 
> 
> There does, although the MWI is deterministic. I can't think of any good 
> reason why true or 
> apparent quantum randomness should be necessary for intelligent behaviour or 
> consciousness.

I can't either, although Henry Stapp thinks he has such a theory: 
quant-ph/0003065.

Brent Meeker

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to