On 1 Sep, 18:14, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/1 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Nyman wrote:
> >> 2009/9/1 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >>> I claim that that is a *possiblity* and as such is enough
> >>> to show that CTM does not necessarily follow from the computability of
> >>> physics.
>
> >> It may be easy to lose sight, in the flurry of debate, that the
> >> argument is against CTM+PM.  AFAICS nobody is claiming that the
> >> assumption of CTM is *forced* by the computability of physics,
> >> although the contrary would of course argue against it.  Rather, *once
> >> CTM is assumed* the entailment on the basis of UDA-8 is that PM is
> >> false, or at best superfluous.  If we can't get past this point, we're
> >> doomed to go round in circles.
>
> >>> The CTM does indeed have hypotetical implciations about
> >>> virtualisation, but nothing follows from that. There is no
> >>> implication from "I might be virtualised" to "I am virtualised" any
> >>> more than from "I might be  BIV.."
>
> >> On the contrary, the insight that Bruno points out is that the force
> >> of CTM consists precisely in the *assumption* that "I am virtualised";
> >> else it has no force.  This is the point.  UDA-8 is then designed to
> >> expose the entailment that "my generalised environment is virtualised"
> >> is thereby also forced.  Consequently the CTM is forced to be a theory
> >> of mind-body, or else nothing.
>
> > How did we get from a hypothetical that "I am virtualised" to something
> > being *forced*?  This is like saying "I might be virtualised" entails "I
> > must be virtualised".
>
> > Brent
>
> I don't see it this way...
>
> The level "0" has nothing that can be detected/tested if CTM is true
> by a computational observer (us if CTM is true). Level 0 plays no
> role.

That is the repetition of the usual mistake. I can have good
reason to believe I am on level 0 without having evidence. THe
reason is given by Occam's razor -- which is also the reason
I have to believe I am not a BIV etc etc etc.

> So I see no points in positing one in the first place.
> Simulation is
> relative to an UTM not to an innaccessible substrate.

I see no point in positing immaterial UTMs
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to