On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> >
> > But if numbers can "just exist", and matter can "just exist", then why
> > can't conscious experiences "just exist"?
> Numbers can just exist, and this is the last unsolvable mystery. Yet
> we can explain (assuming comp) why this mystery is absolutely
> unsolvable. It is not possible to explain numbers without assuming
> numbers (or combinators, etc.)
> Matter cannot exists primitively, but can exist as appearance for some
> numbers, and those appearance obeys laws, reducible to the math of
> universal numbers.
> Consciousness also, but is more fundamental than matter: NUMBER =>
> CONSCIOUSNESS => MATTER, is the probable "causal" (in some precise
> number theoretical sense) relation.
> CONSCIOUSNESS => HUMAN NUMBERS). Here the last two steps would explain
> why we don't accept easily (intuitively) the origin).
That is interesting, why would you say NUMBER => CONCIOUSNESS => MATTER is
more probable than NUMBER => MATTER => CONSCIOUSNESS?  Is it related
to Boltzmann's
theory of independent brains being more probable than whole universes?

To your second point, about NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => MATTER => HUMAN
CONSCIOUSNESS => HUMAN NUMBERS, what is the purpose/role of the
consciousness step prior to matter?  How does consciousness support matter
that supports human consciousness?

> >
> > Why do my conscious experiences have the particular contents that they
> > do?
> Again, here we can explain why we cannot explain this. Like we can
> explain that no one can explain why it has been reconstituted in
> Washington and not in Moscow (or vice-versa). This is what we can call
> geography/history, by opposition to physics which studies laws (of the
> observable by universal machine). Laws are universal. In my youth I
> thought that physics was a sort of geography. Now I know that comp
> preserve a big body of physical laws. The multiverse is the same for
> all observers, (machine and non machine, really, except those 'quite
> close to the unique "one")

That is very interesting, what do you mean by those close to the unique one?
 Would these be observers which appear early on in the Dovetailer Algorithm?



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