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? Brent > > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
