Gunther wrote: "...assuming that _every_ computation is conscious qua computation? " brings up in my mind: thinking in comp (at least: in numbers) translates 'conscious' into 'computed' ?????? (That would imply an elevation from the binary embryonic contraption as our "computer" into more sophisticated systems, if I dare say: 'analogue'?) - - -proposal for vocabulary - - -
John M On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Günther Greindl <[email protected] > wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > > 1-OM, (by step 7, correspond to infinity (aleph_zero) of 3-OMs, > > themselves embedded in bigger infinities (2^aleph_zero) of > > computations going trough their corresponding states. > > Between you-in-the-living room, and you-in-the-kitchen there is > > already a continuum of stories/computations. > > I'm fine up to here. > > > The alien should be able to shut down the universal dovetailer. By > > No, they need not - see below. > > > I think you (momentarily perhaps?) forget the full consequence of the > > seventh uda step. You, in the next instant, is literally determined by > > a continuum of computations+oracles executed by the UD. Thanks to > > I am aware of Step 7: but I don't agree that all computations need > correspond to a continuation of an OM. > > You agree that some "continuations" can actually be a non-continuation, > don't you? For instance, in Quantum suicide, there are versions of you > which die (visibly for other observers) - so there are "continuations" > of your state which code your termination. > > I do not see following from UDA that all computational continuations > need correspond to OMs. For instance, in step 1 we say "yes doctor", but > we don't say yes to every doctor, for instance to the one arriving with > some cogwheels -> "no doctor" ;-) > > So, what I am saying is that maybe in some cases (cul de sac) _all_ > (2^aleph_zero) continuations actually code for termination (=the > teleport fails completely, but annihilation unfortunately succeeds). > > How can you exclude that? Are you assuming that _every_ computation is > conscious qua computation? (then I would agree -> QI; but I don't share > that assumption, and I don't see it anywhere in UDA) > > Best Wishes, > Günther > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
