On 19/01/2009, at 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 18-janv.-09, à 11:32, Kim Jones a écrit : > >> >> >> On 18/01/2009, at 4:38 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I have no doubt that digital mechanism and materialism are >>>> incompatible, >>>> though. >>> >>> Is that because, under materialism, consciousness depends on causal >>> links? >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >> >> >> supernatural causal links > > > > All right, if you define "supernatural causal links" by the "natural" > relation existing among "natural" numbers (or other finite things). > Assuming comp, of course.
But Brent was momentarily speaking of materialism - materialism doesn't acknowledge any form of comp "immateriality" except according to the (probably) false mind/body dualism, where the mind is allowed to be an ethereal emanation of the brain. But that's not even immateriality in your specific sense - that's popular superstition. You've cured me of that. Mind is computation; matter is computation - consciousness is not unique in the sense of some special pleading that allows it to avoid Turing emulability. > > > That "natural supernatural" is really "super" in the sense that, as a > machine or number, we cannot prove or known all the relations from > which physics and nature emerge or supervene on. Once comp is assumed this follows, yes. > > > Kim, (and others) are you OK with the first person indeterminacy > issue? I am happy to move on from this now. I cannot see how there can be a way of distinguishing any of my copies. > > Are you ok that, from a first person point of view, throwing a coin > and > self-duplication are identical or isomorphic experience? The two appear fundamentally the same process apart from the numbers of atoms involved > > And, do you agree that introducing delays does not change the > expectations (the probabilities, or the credibilities) used for the > first person indeterminacy? Discussion over the last few days points has circled around this; personally, I now accept that "I" only exist when my conscious mind is up and running. During delays in teleportation my conscious mind cannot run on any hardware so I have no way of experiencing the delay. In fact the delay makes no difference to the outcome from my perspective. In step 6 every consistent extension is now virtual but this makes no difference to my belief that I am the same person I was before teleportation since I anticipate a consistent extension and that is what I experience. All that the experiment has to do is match my expectations with a consistently logical and convincing reality and I am prepared every time to say "This is real and this is happening to me" despite delays, annihilated originals, virtual renderings etc. As long as I am convinced by the environment I find myself in, I am prepared to bet that it is causally connected to the one (I experienced) before it - which I guess it would be even if it were an unconvincing low-res simulation. > > > Take all you time, but if you can ask some question, it will help me > to > prepare the answer. If UDA1..6 is well understood, meaning that there > is no more question, I will try to imagine a way to explain step 7, > and > this without getting in the mathematical details (if that is > possible). This is the hard part! Still, I feel that I can intuit it. This is where you show how physics arises from number. Also how the Multiverse and MWI find their place in comp. > > > I know that sometimes, things can seems so incomprehensible that > people > cannot even ask any question. Not incomprehensible - just counter-intuitive. It's a mind-boggling exercise and up to here I do not feel you are losing any explanatory power by cutting back on the maths. > In that case, tell me know that it is too > much incomprehensible, and it will be my duty to make things even more > clearer .... until the "ah ah" (meaning "I understand or I have find > an > error". > > Best, > > Bruno - I did get a brief case of the "Ah Ah" (meaning I understand) when I read this article recently: Our world may be a giant hologram - space - 15 January 2009 - New Scientist Surely the discovery of the graininess of spacetime adds weight to the physics/psychology reversal of comp? regards, Kim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---