An implicit assumption is that observation requires some form of information processing, which in turn means operating on strings written in some alphabet (WLOG binary).
But such information processing needn't imply that only computable functions are used. So COMP is not necessarily true. Cheers On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 05:46:06PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 27-sept.-07, à 02:09, Russell Standish wrote to Hal Finney: > > > However, it does seem to be true that not all strings are capable of > > being interpreted as an observer moment of a conscious observer. > > > I still would appreciate what do you mean by a string being interpreted > as an observer moment of an observer, without comp. > Without comp, I don't find any clear definition of "interpretation" > which gives sense in such a context. > (Wait perhaps my comment of the post you have addressed to me ...). > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
