On 23 Jul 2011, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Comp explains where the laws of physics come from, and this without
eliminating the person and souls.
Does it explain where comp comes from?
Yes. Comp explains why some machine bet in comp, and why no correct
machine believes rationally in comp: they know that comp is a sort of
risky eternal bet. Biology gives evidence that nature has already bet
on comp. Physics gives evidence that "matter" has already bet on comp.
This might be a problem for comp because it entails a priori non
computable elements in physics. Now the QM indeterminacy might be
Craig, I agree with 1Z, it is hard to comment some of your statements
because we don't know what are the assumptions, and what is the
When you invoke the wetness as a criteria for life, you are indeed
just silicon or number racist.
With respect to comp, that would change nothing. it would mean that
consciousness, for some weird reason needs the water molecules, which
would act like low level necessary routines. But water behavior is
Turing emulable (according to the physics of today).
What if I come at your restaurant, with my daughter and her husband
who just bought and use an artificial brain with usual silicon ships
which simulates its brain at the level of the water and all molecules
including the microtubules (just above the uncertainty of Heisenberg
level). Would you still say "sorry, we don't serve machine"? That is
silicon racism indeed.
What if he has a super laser based quantum machine, simulating him far
below the QM uncertainty. Would you still say "sorry, we don't serve
machine"? That is quantum laser racism.
Comp is just the theoretical assumption that such a level exists. Then
you should not have too much difficulties to grasp that comp implies
that either the universe is not robust enough to run a significant
part of the universal dovetailing, or the laws of physics emerge from
number theory, and this in a precise way (involving modalities like
proof, know, observe, feel). That is mainly what UDA steps 1-7 shows.
The step 8 is more difficult and the best version today is on this
list (under the label MGA). Search the MGA thread. Step 8 shows that
the robustness argument is a red herring.
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