On 08 Feb 2011, at 21:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/8/2011 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Answer precisely my question in my last post. I recall it:
Could you explain to me how you predict what you will see (qualia)
when you abandon an apple free in the air, in a big universe with a
running UD in it? How do you predict your experience?
If you agree with step 1-6, you don't have much choice, and you
will understand the reversal.
?? Obviously I would predict seeing the apple fall. This is a
consequence of my inference from past experience and even my
evolutoinary ancestry. Even babies expect unsupported objects to
fall. Do you claim you can predict that apples should be seen to
fall from comp+arithimetic alone?
Not really.
My claim is far more modest, albeit radical.
I claim that IF comp is true THEN we HAVE TO derive from comp
+arithmetic alone any physics allowing the apple to get its usual
falling behavior.
More precisely, if you have no objection with UDA steps 1-6, then to
predict the behavior of the apple in UDA-Step 7, you have to consider
all the computations made by the UD, and going through you current
first person mental state, (of seeing your hand with the apple), and
take into account the first person indeterminacy on all those
computations.
If this contradicts the "usual prediction" then comp is false. Comp
might seem to contradict the usual prediction, due to the many
aberrant dreams, the white noise, the white rabbits ..., but the space
of computations is highly structured, even more so when we take into
account the many possible "person views", so that we just cannot
conclude that the usual predictions refute comp.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
