Hi,
I have found what I believe is a flaw in the reasoning in the paper.
On pages 5-6 we find:
" In Section 5, I attempt to apply this reasoning to the case of an
infinite lifetime. I find that, on the one hand, in discovering his
current moment out of an infinite ensemble of moments, the observer
should gain an infinite amount of information. But, on the other hand, I
argue that such a state of affairs is not logically possible. Thus I
conclude that an infinite conscious lifetime is not possible in principle."
I disagree with this conclusion because the ability to 'discover'
ones current moment out of an infinite ensemble of moments would require
the ability to access the computational resources needed to run the
computation of the search algorithm on the infinite ensemble. In this
case it is required that an infinite quantity of resources be available
in a finite or infinitesimal duration. The author does mention some
aspects of the problem in computational terms but the issue of resources
does not seem to have been noticed. I find it strange that computations
can be treated as if they are not subject to the laws of physics that
included prohibitions on perpetual motion machines. There is no such
thing as a free computation. The content of our Observer moments is
finite due to computational resource limitations not because of some
universal prior measure.
Onward!
Stephen
On 8/25/2011 5:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi David,
It looks not so bad :)
At first sight it is based on the ASSA (absolute self-samplings, like
in the doomsday argument; may be Russell can comment on this). He
seems naïve on the identity thesis, but that could be a reduction ad
absurdum. The use of classical chaos is interesting, but not
completely convincing, I might think on it. Will take a deeper look
later. Thanks,
Bruno
On 25 Aug 2011, at 00:12, David Nyman wrote:
This paper presents some intriguing ideas on consciousness,
computation and the MWI, including an argument against the
possibility of consciousness supervening on any single deterministic
computer program (Bruno might find this interesting). Any comments
on its cogency?
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208038
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/AyiMzznp-hIJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
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.
--
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.
