On 03 Dec 2008, at 05:58, Jason Resch wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
> All this is a bit complex because we have to take well into account
> the distinction between
> A computation in the "real" world,
> A description of a computation in the "real" world,
> And then most importantly:
> A computation in Platonia
> A description of a computation in Platonia.
> I argue that consciousness supervenes on computation in Platonia. Even
> in Platonia consciousness does not supervene on description of the
> computation, even if those description are 100% precise and correct
> Bruno, this is interesting and I have had similar thoughts of late  
> regarding along this vein.  The trouble is, I don't see how the  
> "real" world can be differentiated from Platonia.

It is hard to answer this. I think that after UDA+MGA the  
"real" (physical) world is the sum on all computations going through  
my state or our sharable comp state. With comp, Platonia, 3-Platonia  
(to be sure), can be represented by a tiny part of arithmetic, or just  
by the deployment of the UD. The physical world will be an inside  
construction made by inside machines/numbers. It will appear that such  
an inside view will be much bigger than 3-platonia. Like in Skolem  
paradox, platonia can be rather little from "outside", and *very* big  
from inside.

> Just as the UD contains instances of itself, and hence computations  
> within computations,

I guess you mean the deployment. UD is the finite program which  
generates the deployment. At some point we will have to be cautious  
not identifying those two things. But it is OK. And indeed, the  
deployment contains an infinity of deployment which themselves contain  
an infinity off deployment ...

> can't mathematical objects contain mathematical objects?

Some can. Exemples: well, the deployment :)
But many fractals, universal or not, etc. Actually they are more  
included in themselves than element of themselves. But this is a bit  
math tech.

> If so then aren't our actions in this universe just as mathematcally  
> or computationally fundamental as any other instantiation in platonia?

No more after UDA+MGA, or UDA(1...8). Our consciousness is "attached'  
to all (relative) instantiation in Platonia. If you make the usual  
static picture of the deployment, a big 3-dimensional or 2-dimensional  
cone, each of our states appears infinitely in a quasi dense way on  
its "border". The notion of ""this" universe" does no even make a  
clear sense, we can talk only about our most probable histories. And,  
by doing measurement, we never select one history among an infinity,  
we always select an infinity of histories among an infinity of  

> Platonia might be highly interconnected even fractal and so  
> performing a computation in this universe in a sense hasn't created  
> anything new, but created a link to other identical things which  
> have always been there, and in the timelessness of platonia one  
> can't say which came before, or which is the original or most real.

Yes. Moreover, we are never singular. I think this is the startling  
part which is nevertheless confirmed by QM (Everett).

> After wrestling with block time, the MGA, and computationalism I'm  
> starting to wonder how computations are implemented in a 4  
> dimensional and static mathematical object.

Why do you want to do that? We have to do the contrary: extract the  
physics and the math-physics, from the much simpler (yet non trivial)  
notions of computation and of computation "as seen from inside". To be  
sure, it is not even obvious that a notion of block-physical-universe  
will remain possible (I have no idea on this). Our sharable dreams  
glue well locally, but it is an open question to know if the gluing  
can be made global and define an objective general physical reality.

> The best I can come up with is that the mathematical structure is  
> defined by some equation or equations,

I really don't know. I expect that the mathematical structure, as seen  
from inside, is so big that Platonia cannot have it neither as element  
nor as subpart. (Ah, well, I am aware that this is counter-intuitive,  
but here mathematical logic can help to see the consistency, and the  
quasi necessity with formal version of comp).

> and that by virtue of this imposed order, defines relations between  
> particles.  Computation depends on relations, be it electrons in  
> silicon, Chinese with radios or a system of beer cans and ping-pong  
> balls;

Here you are talking about instantiations of computations relatively  
to our most probable computations, which have a physical "look". But  
strictly speaking computations are only relation between numbers.

> from the outside there is little or no indication what is going on  
> is forming consciousness, it is only relative from the inside, and  
> since these relations carry state and information across one of the  
> 4 dimensions of the universe we end up with DNA and brains which  
> record and process information in sequence, or so it appears to us  
> being trapped on within this equation defined in platonia.

It is the contrary. We cannot be trapped in any equation. We are  
trapped only in the deployment. We hope our histories (computations)  
will lead us to coherent and sufficiently computable local structure  
so that we can remain in a state of partial control, but we cannot  
hope for much more than that, unless some program (generated by the  
UD) wins the measure battle, but then it has to be a sort of super- 
universal dovetailer. I doubt this exist, despite a feeling that a  
quantum universal dovetailing could play that role, if it could make  
sense. Now, even if such sub-program exists, we have to derive its  
existence from the measure (on 1-computations) problem.

> In the case of a movie that is in this physical world, no  
> mathematical equation defines progression between frames and there  
> is no conveyance of information, the alteration of one frame does  
> not affect any other which would not be the case nor possible with a  
> timeless mathematical object.

We agree on this.



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