On 13 Jul 2011, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2011 3:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jul 2011, at 10:28, Kim Jones wrote:
What does the pronoun "its" refer to in this sentence? The UD or
the universe? How can something be the result of a process going
through it? It has to exist already before anything can "go
through it". Doesn't it? Could either Quentin or Bruno please
render this thought in French, please? I will understand it
I cannot even think in french! Really, I have been asked to write a
paper in french, for a book, and I realize that I am so used to
write on this in english that I have to think a lot to find french
expressions to convey the thought.
The "its" is neither the UD, nor the universe, but the observer
(you). The observable part of the universe that the observer is
observing here and now is determined by the collection of
computations (in the UD) going through the state of the observer
<here and now>. It is the 3-state of the observer <here and now>.
Just imagine that there is somewhere a DU running in the universe.
Then take into account the first person indeterminacy and its
invariance for huge computation delays, its invariance for the real/
virtual change, well, all the first person invariance described in
the first six steps of the UD Argument. You can see, then, that,
whatever experience you are doing in your present, your subjective
future is determined by the infinity of computations made by that
UD and which go through the computational state of your mind during
the experiences. OK?
OK - I think. The indeterminacy arises because among the
computations that the UD is performing there are many realizations
of universes in which "you" have the same mental state.
Universes, or pieces of universes, and/or just dreams, etc. OK
But the continuations of those computations are not identical since
they are in different universes.
But it seems that this requires some way of identifying what part of
a universe is "you". How are "you" picked out? By point of view
(in the general sense of local interaction)?
Yes. The picking out is made by the first person point of view. There
is no third person ways to make the picking out, but the observer
himself will do it from his first person point of view. He will feel
to be the one who has survived. This will require indeed a local
If my consciousness supervenes only on the couple "ME+MILKY-WAY", I
will survive in the infinity many UD-emulations of the couples "ME
+MILKY-WAY" (done at the right level or below). I will obviously not
be conscious in the extensions where I do not survive. So, quasi-
tautologically, I will be picked out on the domain of continuations
where I do survive.
Note: this introduces a first person non-cul-de-sac form of
immortality, which is the reason why it is handled by the Bp & Dt
hypostase. The "Dt" assures the existence of at least one extension,
as we know it exist in the UD*. It is necessary given that G, which
represents the believed machine's logic of belief, does not prove Bp -
> Dt (but G* proves it, G* represents the true machine's logic of
Of course, biologists provide clues that the level is possibly high
(neurons, glial cells, chemical brain product concentration), but
strictly speaking we cannot prove that a level of substitution is
correct. We have to trust or to distrust the doctor, and the doctor
has to be honest in saying that he is just guessing, and that the
operation is risky.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at