On 04/02/11 19:22, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2011 18:44, Andrew Soltau<andrewsol...@googlemail.com>  wrote:

 From my perspective this debate / clarification is getting lost in language
problems.

Given that a universal dovetailer must necessarily produce *all*
experiential realities, all possible experiencable moments, how do you
account for our endlessly repeated observations of an experiential reality
that corresponds *precisely* not only with ordinary every day observations
of a physical quantum reality, but also all quantum experiments to date.
Forgive me butting in, but occasionally I find it helps to reconsider
the problem using less technical language (since I'm not very
technical).  I tend to think about this from a One-Many perspective.
Essentially, in talking about "consciousness" or observation, the comp
assumption implies that our perspective is always from the "point of
view" of the One.  The infinity of computation, in this analogy the
Many, is somehow "seen" from the point of view of the One.  So then
the question is - how can any particular set of experiences emerge, or
be filtered, from the totality of the Many, from such a perspective?
Simple ideas of "measure" may indeed seem to give the wrong answer,
very quickly.  It seems that we have to think combinatorially, in
terms of higher orders of "filtration" - perhaps an infinity of them.
The "Goldilocks enigma" of cosmology may be suggestive here - the
20-or-so free parameters, their sometimes exquisite degree of
adjustment, and their possible inter-dependence, seems to imply a
pitiless winnowing of the Many such that vanishingly few experiential
realities with the observed characteristics can survive.  Hence the
remainder subside into non-experiential oblivion.

I suppose that was as clear as mud.  But it may give a flavour.

David


 From my perspective this debate / clarification is getting lost in language
problems.

Given that a universal dovetailer must necessarily produce *all*
experiential realities, all possible experiencable moments, how do you
account for our endlessly repeated observations of an experiential reality
that corresponds *precisely* not only with ordinary every day observations
of a physical quantum reality, but also all quantum experiments to date.

--
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.


Thank you David, 'butting in' very welcome!

It seems quite inevitable that any ordinary concept of measure must give the wrong answer. And it seems to me that since what is proposed is at least radically counter-intuitive, it requires some powerful rationale to support it. I am not clear what possible basis is provided for this rationale.

Yes indeed, 'the 20-or-so free parameters, their sometimes exquisite degree of adjustment, and their possible inter-dependence' does indeed imply, surely to all of us, that there is 'a pitiless winnowing of the Many such that vanishingly few experiential realities with the observed characteristics can survive' but surely this implies, or tends to imply, a physical basis, a relativistic and quantum mechanical basis, to reality - it is the physical parameters, and their place in physics, which provides this brutal filtering. Or is there a point here with respect to computational mind that I am missing?

Andrew



--
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