Le 05-oct.-07, à 19:56, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
>> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next".
>> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different
>> persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the
>> "observer moment" of me.
>> As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by
>> my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information
>> the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just
>> experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should
>> refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since
>> different observers live in different universes which have different
>> laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared
>> each other.
> How do you know they live in different universes? The great agreement
> among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective world.
> It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and
> algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an
> objective world as described by physics.
I agree. And with comp, that objective physics cannot be fundamental.
It has to be derived from numbers (or combinators, etc.)
The objective physics is the objective sum on machine's ignorance and
what is invariant there. The physical is an aspect of the larger
objective machine first person plenitude. It seems to me this follows
(not necessarily easily!) from UDA.
> In which case the observer moments are derivative from the objective
> world - that's what makes it a more efficient hypothesis.
You have not shown that. You talk like if the physicists have solved
the mind-body problem. Assuming comp the mind-body relation is no more
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