On 07/02/11 15:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is what seems straightforward to me.
Thought is a computation. OK.
Experiential reality is a computation. OK.
No. When you say "experiential reality" is a computation, you are
saying something ambiguous, where comp is far more precise. Because if
I can survive with a digital brain, then the experiential reality, the
first person, subjective, experience is not a attachable to a
computation, but to an infinity of computations, and it obeys a logic
driven by the knowing arithmetical points of view, which makes it
closer to the non computable notion of "inner god" than to a 3-person
computation. The first person cannot even describe (or name, in the
logician terms) itself.
Yes! As Everett demonstrates, experiential reality is essentially a very
simple computation. It is the addition of each new observation to the
record of observations. The not so simple bit is the computation of each
new observation, though in the Everything concept it is relatively
simple, since it is simply all possible observations.
I think I quoted this before, but this is the computation.
void transtemporal_reality () {
/* Initialisation */
Boolean new_observation = true;
Observation observation = LIGHT;
Functional_Identity observer = 1;
World world_hologram = NO_OBSERVATIONS;
Correlations_Record observables[];
Quantum_State ?;
Elapsed_Time t = 0;
int c = 0;
while (observer != 0) {
/* Process 1 -- Quantum time -- Change of quantum mechanical frame of
reference */
if ( new_observation ) {
world_hologram = world_hologram + observation;
display (world_hologram);
observer = observer + observation;
observables[c++] = observation;
? = quantum_state_defined_by (observables)
new_observation = false;
}
/* Process 2 -- Space-time time -- Change of inertial frame of reference */
else {
t = t + PLANCK_TIME
new_observation = compute_neural_state (?, t);
if ( new_observation)
observation = get_sensorium_contents();
break;
}
}
}
If variables ?, observation, and observables[], and function
get_sensorium_contents() were instantiated in suitably coherent memory
of a quantum computer, such a program would produce the subjective
realities of all possible functional identities of an observer, in the
form of Everett's branching tree of memory configurations.
It should be noted that objectively, in a no-collapse universe, ? is
properly a pointer, or reference, to a pre-existing quantum state, and
that the implementation of the statement
new_observation = compute_neural_state (?, t);
is simply reading a specific attribute of that quantum state, as from a
lookup table. This works very nicely given that each observable is a
correlation with a specific quantum state of the environment, the
correlations record being the simultaneity of all such correlations: a
set of commuting operators.
Simple or not, this does not seem ambiguous.
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.
