Hi Bruno, > I think you are correct, but allowing the observer to be mechanically > described as obeying the wave equation (which solutions obeys to comp),
Hmm well if you have a basis, yes; - but "naked" infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space (the "everything" in QM)? With MAT we do not only concentrate on OMs (as with COMP) but on all states (which maybe don't have an OM) > I mean Everett is really SWE+COMP. Ok I have not looked at it this way yet - how does COMP enter the picture automatically in the Everett interpretation? I am missing something here. Do you mean because all the solutions are computable? (but see objection above)? > With MAT we haven't (except bibles, myth, etc.). There is no standard > notion of mat histories, I agree - that is why I think COMP is a better guess than MAT - although I still have some quibbles ... > deployment with comp). To have MAT correct, you have to accept not only > actual infinities, but concrete actual infinities that you cannot > approximate with Turing machine, nor with Turing Machine with oracle. > You are a bit back to literal angels and fairies ... Yes, we agree. > As I said many times, COMP is my favorite working *hypothesis*. It is my ... > MAT has been a wonderful methodological assumption, but it has always > being incoherent, or eliminativist on the mind. Ok. But what do you think of the following: Bertrand Russell's neutral monism (also Feigl and others) is an interesting metaphysical "theory": one would have a basic "mind-stuff" - protoexperientials - which would follow the laws of comp. It would not be a dualism, it would be mind-monism, but the "objects" being computed would not be OMs directly but some kind of basic mind-components - this idea is not new, in fact these objects would correspond to the "dharmas" of yogacara (and also Theravada Buddhism, but not so clearly there). (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmas#Dharmas_in_Buddhist_phenomenology) One would lose the wonderful OM-COMP correspondence (which I think is an important feature of your COMP) and get some kind of "binding problem" again - how a unified consciousness results from the "dharmas"; but one would be able to better explain how we have shareable histories (which is I think a _weak point_ of COMP if related directed to OMs - as has already been mentionend on the list, we can drift into solipsism with COMP quite easily (and I don't see why shareable histories of any great measure should evolve) >> p.s.: I am looking forward to your further MGA posts (how far will they >> go, you have hinted up to MGA 5?) and the ensuing discussion, I have >> very much enjoyed reading all this stuff. > > > Thanks. And so you believe that MAT+MEC makes Alice conscious through > the projection of its brain movie! Yes, if MAT+MEC is assumed, I would believe this. And I would not yet accept it as an "absurdity" and ruling out of MAT+MEC - although I would see that it is beginning to get very strange *grin* >You really want me to show this is > absurd. It is not so easy, and few people find this necessary, but I > will do asap (MGA 3). Yup :-) And I would be interested what you think of the idea to let COMP govern a "dharma"-level and not an OM-level directly. Cheers, Günther --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
