On 19 Jan 2009, at 13:56, Kim Jones wrote:

> 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 -

Actually this is an open problem. The point is that if mind is  
computation then matter is not necessarily computation, and a priori  
it is not computation. (Step 7 !)
With comp we can take a very little ontology: just 0, 1, 2, 3, ...  
with their usual additive and multiplicative relations.
This, then give rise "automatically" to a literally un-computably big  
"first person" an "other-person epistemology.

> consciousness is not unique in the sense of some special pleading  
> that allows it to avoid Turing emulability.

OK. But keep in mind that consciousness is unique in the sense of  
knowing that it cannot know its Turing emulability level (yet can bet).

>> 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.

OK, but that is why, when we assume comp, physics can no more be  
fundamental but cannot be entirely computable.

>> 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.

Whaouh good work!

>> 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.

Yes, exactly. comp has its own multiverse so you can compare with the  
multiverse inferred from observation.

>> 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.

I am not sure I completely understand what you mean by "cutting back  
on the maths".

But I am sure you understand that if, at the end of the argument  
"reality" is arithmetical, it will be hard to keep the math under the  
rug. Theoretical computer science is a branch of math. Forgetting  
Babbage for one second, the discovery of the universal machine is a  
discovery made by mathematicians (Post, Turing, Church, ...).

The path here is easy, but long. I have to introduce you to the  
universal machine, and this can seem as very abstract without some  
acquaintance with *many* universal machines (note the "s").

>> 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

Very interesting! Thanks.
If consciousness is gravity (the wave selector), as Penrose find  
plausible, the blurriness of the hologram could necessarily (asuming  
comp) prevent the observation of the gravitational waves, making them  
definitely undetectable. Just thinking aloud.

> Surely the discovery of the graininess of spacetime adds weight to  
> the physics/psychology reversal of comp?

I am afraid to say no. To be sure it is an open problem, and a complex  
one, but a priori, by its first person structures comp would predict  
the presence of continua, if not of fractal laws without bounds. I  
dunno. Again: don't worry because this comes from step seven. The next  

As I said, we have all the time. i have to explain you some universal  
machines and universal languages. I can try one way, and then another  
at any rhythm the circumstances can provide. (Let us just try to  
finish the conversation before the collision of the Milky Way with  

I have to go now(*).


(*) I have flagged many posts which I will comment asap, thanks for  
the patience.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to