On 31 Aug, 19:37, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:15, Flammarion wrote:
> >> When discussing fundamental science, no use of the word "exist"
> >> should
> >> be taken literally.
> > Fine. Then I am not literally being simulated by an immateial UD.
> If you want. But my point is that NO use of the word "exist" should be
> taken literally.

Fine. I'll include you conclusion that matter doesn;t exist in that.

> >>>> It would help much more if you were able to say "I don't understand
> >>>> this or that in the reasoning, and give explicit reference to the
> >>>> paper or posts".
> >>> The argumetn I am actually making is that your arguemnt is either
> >>> invalid or has an imiplict premise. How am I supposed ot
> >>> point to an implicit premise.
> >> By pointing on a step in the reasoning where you think I am using
> >> that
> >> implicit premise.
> > That's where you tell me I am being simulated by an immaterial UD
> I say this, but only in the following precise sense. Once you say yes
> to the doctor, and if comp is true, you can survive by having your
> instantaneous digital state of your generalized brain encoded in a
> number, and reconstituted later. Then, that computational state, and
> an infinity of more fine grained equivalent one, assuming your doctor
> has chosen a correct substitution level,  belong to an infinity of
> computational histories. By Church thesis, the UD generates

Bang! That's it. Up pops this UD from nowhere. Well, I don't
beleive in the UD. I've never seen one.

> executes all computational histories (computations), notably all those
> going through the state S, with and/or without oracles.
> When I say you are simulated in the UD, I am making a shorthand for
> saying this. And quickly your "solipsitic" 1-you is distributed
> densely on the border of the infinite UD*, concrete in the 7th step,
> arithmetical in the 8th step.
> After MGA, you can understand that, saying yes to the doctor, makes
> your consciousness not attributable to ANY particular universal
> machine, but a more complex mathematical structure related to that
> border, and which justifies also the observable, by the machine,
> physical laws. And this make comp empirically refutable.
> By MGA, your notion of literal ontological existence does not make
> sense with comp. It is so much propertyless, than it cannot be used to
> reify a notion of existence more than the apparent matter (given by
> the 4th and 5th hypostases) stabilizes the histories in the UD. "real
> matter" has no epistemological impact (with comp), it adds nothing to
> any theory of matter consistent with digital mechanism. Let us discuss
> MGA to see where is the problem. Or wait 'tilI I explain more the UD.
> Have you understand the step seven? Have you see that the reversal
> occur with the concrete UD, even if PM is needed? In the seventh step,
> the UD is still material in *any* sense, including the primary
> materialist one, if he desires.
> Also, with a stronger form of Occam razor, and using AUDA, you can
> bypass MGA.
> Or if you invoke a degree zero of virtualisation ("the metal"), then
> again, just say no to the digital surgeon. (thinking about some things
> you said in another posts today).
> Bruno
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to