> 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
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).
And I would be interested what you think of the idea to let COMP govern
a "dharma"-level and not an OM-level directly.
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