On 13 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 3:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Multisolipsism
Hi Stephen,
On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:33, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno and Brent,
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Multisolipsism
On 09 Feb 2011, at 20:51, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/9/2011 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip>
How is my first person mental state instantiated in the
computations made by the UD? It can't be a single step of one or
more computations. It must be some kind of equivalence class.
That is a very difficult and tremendously interesting question. The
arithmetical notion of knowledge and observation can only scratch the
surface here. But an answer to that question is not needed to
understand that we have to derive physics from comp, if comp is true.
It is needed to extract the physics, and to solve the mind-body
problem, that's for sure. But let me insist: you don't need to solve
this to understand the comp *necessity* of reducing the mind body
problem to to the body problem in computer science.
Bruno
***
I am very interested in this question as it directly relates to my
questions about how interactions between multiple and separable 1-
p. I continue to be confused by this term "body problem in
computer science". Could you discuss it in some greater detail?
The body problem and the white rabbit problem are variant of the
general problem of explaining the belief in a physical universe from
numbers and computer science, without the assumption that there is a
primary physical reality (or that there is no primary physical
reality). The UD Argument is supposed to justify this in detail. (And
AUDA justifies the non boolean and quantum nature of the logic of what
is observable by asking a 'Löbian number' her opinion on the matter
(no pun intended).
**
[SPK]
OK, sure, but that about considerations of one 'Löbian number'
communicating with another? That is what my questions are about.
DM + ~solipsism can be shown to entail the coherent multiplication of
shared computations, that is first person plural shared dreams. To
show that DM entails ~solipsism by itself, you have to solve the body
problem first. The other minds problem should be easily soluble from
the solution to the body problem, and the key notion is interaction.
But interaction is still problematical even in quantum logic, and a
fortiori in the arithmetical logic. I think you need the "degenerate"
material hypostases: the 'B^n p & D^m p' nuances. With m > n, you get
arithmetical quantum logics, and you almost get the tensor needed for
the interactions. Unfortunately those tensors don't behave so well.
Those tensors arise from a Temperley-Lieb like structure related to
the arithmetical modal projection operators (B^n p & D^m p). This, if
it works, could explain how space arise from numbers, and why the
dynamic is governed by a unitary transformation. Space seems to be
defined only by the conditions of making multi-observers interaction
possible.
Just remember that we have to extract this from arithmetical self-
reference only, in a very special particular way, so that we don't
loose the qualia in the process. Indeed the qualia, including the
quanta, are provided by the intensional variant of the Solovay G/G*
splitting.
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 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.
