Günther Greindl wrote:
> Hi all,
> Bruno, do you still keep a notion of causality and the likes in 
> platonia? I have collected these snips from some recent posts:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>  >But is causality an implementation detail?  There seems to be an 
>  >implicit
>  >assumption that digitally represented states form a sequence just 
>  >because there
>  >is a rule that defines that sequence, but in fact all digital (and 
>  >other)
>  >sequences depend on causal chains.
> Kory wrote:
>  > I have an intuition that causality
>  >(or its logical equivalent in Platonia) is somehow important for
>  >consciousness. You argue that the the slide from Fully-Functional
>  >Alice to Lucky Alice (or Fully-Functional Firefox to Lucky Firefox)
>  >indicates that there's something wrong with this idea. However, you
>  >have an intuition that order is somehow important for consciousness.
> But we must realise that causality is a concept that is deeply related 
> (cognitively, in humans) to time and physical change.
> But both time and space _emerge_ only from the inside view (1st person 
> or 1st person shareable) in the sum over all computations.
> In Platonia (viewed, for the time being, ludicrously and impossibly, 
> from the outside) - there is no notion of time, space, sequentiality, 
> before and after.
> The very notion of causation must be one that arises only in the inside 
> view, as a "succession" of consistent patterns.

I agree.  But what is it about the patterns that creates a succession as viewed 
from "the inside"?  And how do we know that this does not obtain in the 
projection of the MGA?


> In a sense, order (shareable histories) must arise from the Platonic 
> Eternal Mess (chaos) -> somehow along the lines of self-organization maybe:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#Self-organization_in_mathematics_and_computer_science
> In this sense, the computations would "assemble themselves" to 
> "consistent histories".
> Bruno said:
>  >Even
>  >in Platonia consciousness does not supervene on description of the
>  >computation, even if those description are 100% precise and correct
> Hmm, I understand the difference between description and computation in 
> maths and logic, and also in real world, but I do not know if this still 
> makes sense in Platonia -> viewed from the acausal perspective outlined 
> above. Well maybe in the sense that in some histories there will be 
> platonic descriptions that are not conscious.
> But in other histories those descriptions will be computations and 
> conscious.
> 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 

Reply via email to