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 enough.

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 argument.

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.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Reply via email to