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.
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.
> > 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
For more options, visit this group at