Bruno, Thanks for your answers, I think it is safe to say we are on the same page with the UDA. I accept mathematical realism and therefore the existence of abstract Turing machines defining the computational histories of all programs, or the equations of string theory defining all true solutions, etc. Therefore I would say the apparent "physical" universe is a timeless object that exists purely within math, and that our consciousness is formed by computations of processes that take place through one of the dimensions of the universe (time). I also believe there is no single mathematical object to which we can say we exist in, our certainty of which universe we can exist in changes all the time depending on the content of our OM.
For example, when not thinking about the color of my tooth brush, and when not directly perceiving it, I exist in all universes where it is possible for my OM to exist, some of which my toothbrush is green, others red, or blue. Only when I stop and recall what color it is do I limit which universes I can belong to. Does your opinion differ in this regard? I am not sure if you believe in the actual existence of shareable physical (mathematical) universes or only in the dreams, which only occasionally give the appearance of shared histories. This to me sounds like the comp equivalent of Boltzmann brains, which I think would be less frequent than brains evolving through the full history of mathematical objects or computational universes. Regarding zombies, I think there can be outwardly appearing accidental zombies (from a third person view) that can appear conscious in certain circumstances but I don't think its possible to have two identical computational histories and only ascribe consciousness to one of them. Jason P.S. I apologize for the difficult to understand and half completed sentences that appeared in my previous post, I was writing notes of thoughts as they were coming to me and forgot to clean them up before sending out the message. On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 07 Nov 2008, at 03:27, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> >> Le 04-nov.-08, à 23:21, Jason Resch a écrit : >> > although I agree with Brent, if the simulated world in the computer is >> > entirely cut off from causal effects of the physical world where the >> > computer is running, then you have also created an entirely new >> > world/reality. >> >> I agree with this too. The only thing necessary to understand step 6, >> is that you do survive there like if it was teleportation. And in that >> context, the calculus of probability remains the same as in the five >> preceding steps. For example, if you understand step 5, you know that >> if a instantenous of you is done, and is not detsroyed, and if that >> copy is reinstantiated in the virtual Moscow tomorrow, and in the >> virtual Washington in one billion of years, the probability that you >> will "stay here" (and not find yourself in the virtual realities) is >> 1/3 (assuming 1/2 for perfect duplication). It means that Nozick's >> closer continuer identity theory fails with comp. > > > My only reservation with the above is I am not sure probabilities in > expecting your next observer moment work this way. From a third person > perspective I have a 100% chance of experiencing all 3 extensions, and as > you say, this is interesting because from a first person POV you do not > experience all 3 locations at once. I think this is where I disagree, you > _do_ experience all 3 locations at once, but due to the isolated locations > and lack of communication between the 3 different brains, they are unable to > merge the experience into a memory of being in all 3 locations. > > > > > I do agree with you. But in that sense I am already Jason Resch. We come > from the same splitting amoeba. This is true, at some level, but it does not > seem to me relevant for the understanding that physics *has to* be extracted > from probability/credibility measure on computations. > > > > > > This is the same reason that though Einstein says we exist in a > 4-dimensional block where time is only subjective, we never experience being > in all times at once, due to the limited, low-bandwidth, communication from > past memories to the present, and complete lack of communication from future > states to the present. The vast majority of information within our brain > state at any one time is chiefly information of the present and very recent > past, giving us the feeling of living in the present, when of course our > true nature is that of a 4-dimensional snake stretching from the time of > birth to death. > > This lack of communication between individual brains is what fools us into > believing we are each a unique conscious entity, when truly there is nothing > to differentiate one observer from any other, except for the current content > of their experience. > > > > You are right. But when you look for the true reason why apples appear to > fall on the ground. UDA(+AGF, that is 1...8) explains why the comp correct > way to predict the behavior of the apple consists in looking in the > universal deployment, and then looking at all computations going through > your actual states (the one you have (by comp) once you observet the apple > before dropping it), and, looking at the normal most probable > stories/computations going through that state. > Hmm... perhaps you have a problem with the UD? It does not just generate > OM (Observer Moment). The DU generates all third person "observer moments" > (as instantaneous state of universal self-observing machine) by generating > all the stories (singular computations) going through that state. There is a > continuum (from a first person pov) of such stories. The first person moment > are different modalities. > > > > > I think it is a mistake to use the memories one has access to as a means > to delineate observers, for the vast majority of ones memories are not in > the content of ones OM at any one time. > > > > You are right, but not at the level needed to understand why and how, > assuming comp, we *have* to explain why apples falls from "pure > (mathematical) computer science". (or perhaps you are and there is a > misunderstanding, to be sure). The reasoning should show comp testable. So > we have to take into account all computations going through each observer > moment to have normal relative "expected values". A bit like already with QM > and Everett. > > > > > I think the importance of a particular computational history in defining > an "observer moment" is not as important as memory/communication isolation. > > > > You are right if your goal is to discover who you really are. But not if > your goal is to understand why we have to derive Schoedinger Equation from > computer science and number theory. It makes comp testable, and it provide a > fundamental theory which does not eliminate the person. On the contrary it > explains how person creates reality by history sharing. > Somehow the memory/communication is a key, to delineate sharable stories, > to extract eventually the right notion of arithmetical entanglement. But > this is not easy matter. > > > > The Universal Dovetailer shares a single computational history as one > well-defined short program, and it implements all possible observer moments. > > > > Careful. For an infinitely deep reason related to Church Thesis and the > closure of the set of computable functions for the diagonal procedure (the > real difficulty of the seventh step), the Universal Dovetailer does not > generate just all observer moments, it generate all the computational > histories going through or accessing those observer moments. Those > computations obeys the laws of, well ..., of computations, meaning we have > to take at computer science. Eventually we have to interview the relatively > most probable machine). > > > > Yet would not all OM's it generates be considered the same since they share > a single computational history? > > > Gosh! I was suspecting you have a problem with the UD work. The UD does not > generate the third person OMs. The UD generate the many stories > (computations). It generates all programs AND their many relative > implementations. Well this includes it generates also his own history many > times, but also all other stories (Universal!). > Most stories are infinite, that is what it has to zig-zag recurrently on > the stories it generates. Those stories themselves generate the 3- OM,( or > not (depending on the story and also of the precise definition of OM). Third > person OMs are "causally related" through their singular computations. > First person OMs are related to their probable histories which depend on > the infinitely many stories going through them. > > > > I think it is better to track the flow of information that goes > > > Yes. (Well your sentence is interrupted) but I agree we have to track the > information going through the stories of those OMs. I am just saying that > with UDA(1...7) we know that we have to take account of ALL the stories. And > with UDA.8 we have to to take account of only the mathematical even > arithmetical 3-stories. But the 1-histories will explode in the full first > person plenitude. Arithmetic as seen from inside is already bigger than > Cantor Paradise or any mathematical approximation of Plato Heaven. But let > us not anticipate perhaps (some have get the point I think, and it is a > remind for them, let us say). > > > > > (Experiencingo ne moment because of no communication from the future tothe > past, and very low bandwidth rate from the past to the present) Surely if I > was duplicated to 100 locations (only one of which was Moscow), I could > wager $1 that I will not appear in Moscow, and 99 of my copies will be > richer but > > > but? > > > One OM that travels across all OM's, the UD? ...Share computational > history, same program, it is jsut that the information doesn't get linked > between them. > > > > All 3-OMs are linked by one computation. But reappears in other > computations as well. Then by UDA: all 1-OMs are linked by infinities of > (and measure on) computations. > > Just remember this: the UD generates all computations. For each OMs there > is an infinity of computations going through it. It is really because he > first person cannot be aware of the delays (defined here by number of steps > of the UD to get some OM), that the 1-person indeterminacy bears on > infinite sets of computations. > > Don't confuse the (abstract) running of the UD, and the computations on > which the UD is running. I have not the yime now, but I could try to draw a > picture. > > Tell me if this has helped a bit, or not. > > > Bruno > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---