On 3/4/2011 6:13 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:57 am, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 03 Mar 2011, at 18:39, 1Z wrote:
> > If you have a UDA inside a physical universe,
> I guess you mean "a UD inside a physical universe".
> UDA is for the UD-Argument. The Universal Dovetailer Argument.
> > there is real physics
> > (qua physicalevents)
> > outside it, and there is a real study of physics outside it as well.
> > What goes on in a
> > virtualised environment is not real. You could feed virtualised people
> > false information
> > about the past, but that would not be rewriting history (in the sense
> > of changing the real
> > past) and it would have not mean that the virtualissed people had some
> > valid kind of history qua study of the past) either, since it would
> > not be based
> > on true facts.
> That might be consistent in some theory.
ie the common-sense intutions most people have
> But you elude the reasoning
> and the questions.
> > Likewise, their "phsyics" would not really be phsyics
> > , because it would not be based on the only real phsyical reality, the
> > one in which
> > the UDA is embedded.
> Sorry but in this case, it would be based on the 'real physical
It would not be based on empirical data about the real physical
reality. It would be based on it ontologically, but they would
be unawae of that
> The UD is physically running in that universe, and by the
> first person indeterminacy, even if you do an experiment in the
> physical universe, your first person experience remains determined by
> the physical computations made by the physical UD. So to connect your
> experience with the physical reality, that physical reality has to be
> retrievable from the mathematics of the UD (computer science/number
But there is no guarantee that a virtualised person would
have any epistemic connection to physical reality. Some
of them might see a realistic simulation through coincidence,
but it is doubtful that coincidence can found knowledge.
> If you still don't see this, ask for clarification of the sane04
> paper(*), because it seems to me that the first seven steps are rather
> clear, there. You have mentioned the WR. I take from this that you do
> understand the six first steps, don't you? The seven step follows
> mainly from the invariance of first person experience for change in
> the delays of the (virtual) 'reconstitutions'.
> The eighth step is really more conceptually subtle, and the clearer
> presentation I have done until now is in this list in the "MGA" thread
> (the Movie Graph Argument). It shows that the "real concrete UD" is
> not needed for the reversal to occur.
This touches on my doubts about the MGA. I think that instantiate
consciousness would require a lot of environment outside just the
brain. I base this in part on experiments with sense deprivation which
showed that after a short while, absent any external stimulation, the
brain tends to go into a loop. Bruno has answered this by saying that
the MG is not limited to a brain but can be as comprehensive as
necessary, a whole universe. But in that limit it becomes clear that
the consciousness realized is not in our world but is in another virtual
world. That there might, given a suitable interpretation, be
computations and consciousness in some other virtual world raises the
paradox of the self-conscious rock which Stathis and I discussed at length.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at