Bruno: I looked at UDA via the SANE paper. I am not certain the the mind is Turing emulatable, but will move onward. Using Star Trek transporter concepts, I can accept steps 1 through 5. Step 6 takes only the mind and sends it to a finite computational device or the entire person into a device similar to a Holodeck, where the person is a Holocharacter? I am not certain a UD is physically possible in a finite resource Universe. Ronald
On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com> > >> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > . > > 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 everything-l...@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.
