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
> reality'.
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
> theory).
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.
Brent
--
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.
