On 01 Dec 2008, at 03:25, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 07:10:43PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> I am speaking as someone unconvinced that MGA2 implies an >>> absurdity. MGA2 implies that the consciousness is supervening on the >>> stationary film. >> >> >> ? I could agree, but is this not absurd enough, given MEC and the >> definition of the physical superveneience thesis; > > It is, prima facie, no more absurd than consciousness supervening on a > block universe. > >>> >>> A block universe is nondynamic by definition. But looked at another >>> way, (ie from the inside) it is dynamic. It neatly illustrates why >>> consciousness can supervene on a stationary film (because it is >>> stationary when viewed from the inside). >> >> OK, but then you clearly change the physical supervenience thesis. >> > > How so? The stationary film is a physical object, I would have > thought. I don't understand this. The physical supervenience thesis associate consciousness AT (x,t) to a computational state AT (x,t). The idea is that consciousness can be "created" in real time by the physical "running" of a computation (viewed of not in a block universe). With the stationary film, this does not make sense. Alice experience of a dream is finite and short, the film lasts as long as you want. I think I see what you are doing: you take the stationary film as an incarnation of a computation in Platonia. In that sense you can associate the platonic experience of Alice to it, but this is a different physical supervenience thesis. And I argue that even this cannot work, because the movie does not capture a computation. The universal interpreter is lacking. It could even correspond to another experience, if the graph was a movie of another sort of computer, for example with NAND substituted for the NOR. > > >> >>> The "film", however does need >>> to be sufficiently rich, and also needs to handle counterfactuals >>> (unlike the usual sort of movie we see which has only one plot). >> >> >> OK. Such a film could be said to be a computation. Of course you are >> not talking about a stationary thing, which, be it physical or >> immaterial, cannot handle counterfactuals. >> > > If true, then a block universe could not represent the > Multiverse. Maybe so, but I think a lot of people might be surprised > at this one. I am not sure I can give sense to an expression like "the multiverse" or the "block universe" can or cannot handle counterfactuals. They have no inputs, nor outputs. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
