2009/9/1 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> 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.
>

But level "0" plays no role at all, nothing You can't detect it if CTM
is true (never, * IT IS IMPOSSIBLE *).

Knowing that, presuposing a level "0" is absurd at most and I can't
see how Occam's razor help in positing it. It is unnecessary.
And I can't make sense to telling that is what is needed to have "existence".

>> 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

That's the only thing on which computation supervene, which (UTM) are
themselve computations ===> hence computations supervene on
computations and nothing else.

Implementation is a relative notion.

Quentin

> >
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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