Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
more before I answer Bruno.
Ronald
On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> > Jason(and any others)
> > Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
> > reality is equally hard to convincing present.
> > Ronald
>
> Do you agree/understand that if we are machine then we are in
> principle duplicable? This entails subjective indeterminacy.
> All the rest follows from that, and few people have problems to
> understand UDA 1-7.
>
> UDA-8, which justifies immateriality, is slightly more subtle, but if
> you have followed the last conversation on it on the list (with
> Jacques Mallah, Stathis, ..) you could understand than to block the
> movie graph argument you have to attribute a computational role to the
> physical activity of something having non physical activity, and I
> don't see how we could still accept a digital brain in this case. With
> just UDA 1-7 you could already understand that most of quantum
> weirdness (indeterminacy, non-locality, non-clonability) is a
> qualitative almost direct consequence of digital mechanism (even in
> presence of a primitively material universe).
>
> AUDA, the Löbian interview, is another matter because you need
> familiarity with mathematical logic and recursion theory.
>
> Tell me please what you don't understand in the first steps of UDA. I
> am always interested to have an idea of what is it that people don't
> grasp. I am writing some "official" papers now, and that could help.
> Up to now the results are more ignored than criticized, or is
> considered as crap by religious atheist/materialist, without rational
> arguments. Tell me if you have a problem with the subjective (first
> person) indeterminacy. Thanks.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Jason:
> >>> I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do
> >>> not
> >>> know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
> >>> Ronald
>
> >> Which message in particular do you think is difficult to
> >> present convincingly? Tegmark's ideas that everything is real, or
> >> the
> >> suggestion that computer simulation might be a legitimate tool for
> >> exploration?
>
> >> Jason
>
> > --
> > 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
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> > .
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.
