On 13 Aug, 18:58, "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/13 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 13 Aug, 00:03, "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 2008/8/13 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > Yes, but One Universe (or at least, non-MMW) methodology does
> >> > not claim or pretend or wish to have 0 axioms. I aims for an
> >> > ontologically
> >> > parsimonious explanation that matches the evidence.
> >> Yes so ball at the centre... these axioms are equally valable...
> >> except that the finite number of universes hypothesis has to explain
> >> why that number (be it 1 or 42).
> > It doesn't have to explain it on the basis of apriori axioms. Standard
> > cosmology accepts
> > that many features fo the universe stem from contingent, essentially
> > unaccountable boundary conditions.
> >> Could you explain more precisely what is parsimonious for you ?
> > The non-existence of unobserved entities.
> Plenty of thing are "unobserved", have you ever seen an electron ?
We can posit unobserved things to do explain what is observed. But
that is not
analogous to MMW, since the extra universes in MMW should be observed,
> >> > One Universe (or at least, non-MMW) methodology does
> >> > not claim or pretend or wish to have 0 axioms.
> >> Well so ?
> > So the 0 axiom rule may be impossible to fulfill. Which would make
> > other methodological approaches preferable.
> >> >>Besides I find very
> >> >> problematic the unicity.
> >> > Then you had better say what the problem is.
> >> Why one ?
> > The universe is all there is. How could you have more than one all-
> > there-is?
> Well you're playing with the word here. It's hand waving.
I am not saying there is one universe. I am saying there is as many
as are needed to explain the evidence, and no more.
> >>why not two ? if one why stay one ? There is a single
> >> universe and a precise one and *only this one* and we are actually in
> >> it, wow lucky.
> > Not at all. If there is one, we must be in it, there is nowhere else
> > to be.
> > "Luck"--anthropic claims---features much more in MW thinking.
> Well sure we must be in a universe, as we must be part of the
> everything because we are (well I'm sure for me...)
And if there is one universe, we must be in it. Nothing could
be less coincidental.
> >> > it is not simpler on the "entity" version of O's R, and it does not
> >> > fit the evidence because of the WR problem.
> >> Yes but I see 'real switch' problem as equally problematic in front of
> >> the WR problem.
> > I don't see that. You need to explain. Single-worlders can "switch
> > off" WR's.
> Yes by saying it's a no problem... I can say MW can "switch off" WR as
> easily. But we just make a step back and forth.
That is no explanation. Single worlders -- and physical many
get rid of WR universes by saying they do no exist at all.
Now: don't tell me *that* mathematical may worlders can do
the same, tell me how.
> >> >> No you devise this in 2 parts, I think only the abstract world is
> >> >> ontologically primary.
> >> > That is your conclusions. You cannot assume it in order to
> >> > argue for it.
> >> I do not assume them.
> > Then you need some other way of getting your multiple instantiations.
> Well I believe (note the word) that we (the mind) are a computation
> and as such I believe in strong AI, such that we will do conscious
> digital entities... Either these entities will be truly conscious (and
> it is possible for them to be conscious as we have assume that
> consciousness is a computational process) or they won't, if they won't
> and never will be conscious, it is only possible if contrary to the
> assumption, consciousness is not (only) a computational process. Now
> if consciousness is a computational process and we build an AI (I
> don't see how we couldn't if consciousness is a computation, what
> could prevent it ?) then here you are with multiple implementations.
And if we don't build an AI, here you are without them. (And with
computationalism still true, and without any subjective
> Either you say that even if consciousness is a computation we will
> never and ever be able to replicate this phenomena (creates a digital
> consciousness) and you have to explain why or you should accept 1st
> person indeterminacy...
I don't have to do any of those things. I just have to point out that
it isn't particularly likely. I could be living in a fantastically
Truman-style replica of a *physical* environment..but why should I
that? There are many sceptical hypotheses; they are all equally
likely, ie "not certainly false". Rationally they should be treated
and, since they cannot be equally true, they must be treated as
> Quentin Anciaux
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
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