On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> Hmmm... It means you have still a little problem with step seven. I
> wish we share a computable environment, but we cannot decide this at
> will.  I agree we have empirical evidence that here is such (partially)
> computable environment, and I am willing to say I trust nature for
> this. Yet, the fact is that to predict my next first person experience
> I have to take into account ALL computations which exist in the
> arithmetical "platonia" or in the universal dovetailing.
>
>
Bruno, I am with you that none of us can decide which of the infinite number
of histories contain/compute us; when I talk about a universe I refer to
just a single such history.  Perhaps you use history to refer only to the
computational history that implements the observer's mind where I use it to
mean an object which computes the mind of one or more observers in a
consistent and fully definable way.

What I am not clear on with regards to your position is whether or not you
believe most observers (if we could locate them in platonia from a 3rd
person view) exist in environments larger than their brains, and likely
containing numerous other observers or if you believe the mind is the only
thing reified by computation and it is meaningless to discuss the
environments they perceive because they don't exist.

The way I see it, using the example of this physical universe only, it is
far more probable for a mind to come about from the self-ordering properties
of a universe such as this than for there to be a computation where the mind
is an initial condition.  The program that implements the physics of this
universe is likely to be far smaller than the program that implements our
minds, or so my intuition leads me to believe.


> >  I noticed in a previous post of yours you mentioned 'Kleene
> > predicates' as a way of deriving computations from true statements, do
> > you know of any good sources where I could learn more about Kleene
> > predicates?
>
> A very good introduction is the book by N.J. Cutland. See the reference
> in my thesis. There are other books. I will think to make a list with
> some comments. Actually I really love Kleene's original "Introduction
> to Metamathematics", but the notations used  are a bit old fashioned.
>

Thanks Bruno, I will look into those.

Jason

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to