Hi Bruno
The first seven steps of UDA makes the following points:
1) that comp entails the existence of first person indeterminacy in a
deterministic context. Step 1-3. This is an original result that I
published in 1988 (although I made a dozen of conference on this in
the seventies). Many academics have criticize this, but their argument
have been debunked. Chalmers did criticize it at the ASSC4.
2) that any measure of uncertainty of the comp first person
indeterminacy is independent of the reconstitution delays (step four).
3) that comp entails first person non locality (step this has been
more developed in my thesis, long and short version are in my web
page). This has been retrieved from sane04 (for reason of place), but
is developed in the original 1994 thesis (and in the 1998 short
version, recently published).
4) That first person experience does not distinguish real from virtual
implementation (this is not original, it is in Galouye, and it is a
comp version of the old dream argument in the greek chinese and indian
antic literature). Step six. In particular indeterminacy and non
locality does not depend on the real or virtual nature of the
computation.
All good so far.
Step seven itself shows the reversal between physics and arithmetic
(or any first order theory of any universal system in post Church
Turing sense) in case the physical universe exists primitively and is
sufficiently big.
Because?
So UDA1-7 is the one of the main result of the thesis. A theory which
want to explain and unify quanta and qualia, and respect comp, has to
derive quanta and qualia without postulating them.
Yes
You have also that comp + ~solipsisme entails first person plural MW.
Normally comp should imply ~solipsisme, but as I explain this part is
not yet solved in the concrete.
?
Now most people (among interested) understand UDA1-7, that is, that
comp + *very big* universe entails the reversal. If you have no
problem with the first person indeterminacy, with the invariance for
reconstitution delays, with the inability of first persons to
distinguish (in short time) real and virtual, I don't see what you
miss in the step seven. 7 is a direct consequence of 4,5,6.
Because?
These simply show that the structure of information / algorithm /
computation defining the mind of the observer is simultaneously present
in a very large number of different physical instantiations.
I say that this means that the effective physical environment of this
observer is the simultaneity of all of those physical environments. This
is the concept I call 'universe superposition'.
The result applies equally to a reality basically physical or arithmetic.
The result is personal parallel physical realities for each and every
observer, which I find very interesting and exciting.
This is because, in each such reality, the effective physical
environment (quantum mechanical, or arithmetically simulated quantum
mechanical) is determinate only where observed. Thus each observer is in
a very special position in their reality, in that all the other
observers are effectively icons in this reality, of other parallel
realities.
So the difference between me and others in my reality suggests solipsism
- only I am real and fully defined in my reality. At the same time, we
are all in the same situation, which is why I call it multisolipsism.
Naturally, all this applies irrespective of whether the basis of reality
is physical or arithmetic.
But I don't see why any of that implies 'the reversal between physics
and arithmetic'. It does imply that the determinacy of the effective
physical environment of the observer is defined by, and only by, the
structure of information defining the observer, as held in many-minds
theories. This is all part of the universe superposition concept. But we
still require a physical reality for all this to be instantiated in.
Now, you can postulate that this physical reality itself is simulated,
or purely arithmetic. And I have no problem with that. But I do not see
how this is shown to be the case.
To do that, you would have to show that the appearance of all of this
going on is the natural result of arithmetical processes in the absence
of physical instantiation. This is what I am all agog to have explained
to me!
Andrew
--
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.
