On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 09:06:10PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Dec 2011, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
Even though the parts may be distributed across multiple
branches of
the MV, and have different counterfactual histories?
?
What is a branch of a W in a MW if you allow interaction
between worlds?
Who said anything about interaction between the worlds? I assume by
interaction, you mean the usual interaction physicists means
(interference), or information being passed.
Comp, be it digital or quantum, makes classical computation non
interacting with parallel computation. Locally, if our brains were
quantum computers this would be locally false, but not in a
relevant
way to contradict the MGA consequences, by the fact that if worlds
interfere that much still does not violate Church thesis, and
quantum computer are Turing emulable.
We're not discussing quantum computers here.
Are you arguing that comp does not entail the principle "323"?
I don't believe so.
Be careful of not including the conclusion in the definition
of COMP.
...snip...
If the emulation is by means of dovetailing, then I think
not. A
dovetailer is not conscious.
That is ambiguous. A dovetailer, like Robinson arithmetic (when
proving all its theorems) is not conscious, per se. But it
instantiates consciousness, indeed all possible machine's
consciousness.
Great. But this is more than mere terminological wrangling. To an
observer of the dovetailer, no conscious processes are visible.
No conscious processes are ever visible.
To do
that would require a means of determining whether a computation
is
conscious or not, something we don't have, and probably never
will.
That's always the case. You judge by chatting with person or by
observing them and recognizing yourself.
That's how I became open to the idea that all löbian entities
(machine or not machine) are conscious.
It is another manifestation of there being no God's viewpoint
in a
Multiverse.
I am not sure about that. Many would say that the very idea of
"multiverse" is an attempt of describing "God's viewpoint".
With mechanism we have universal dreams and universal dreamers,
sharing, or not, dreams and subroutines.
It cannot be a God's point of view. The Multiverse is too simple to
admit an observer...
I feel this invalidates applying Maudlin's argument to a
dovetailer.
Let me introduce a new definition. I define a closed generalized
brain (CGB) the portion of reality that you need to emulate a
dream.
This may require the input of random numbers on the synapses. It
seems
to me that dreams are the result of filtering and amplifying random
thermal noise with the brain. It is just a theory, of course, but
it
would mean that the CGB is a Multiverse.
Many neurophysiologists would be that such a portion of reality is
in the skull, and that the process is Turing emulable (and I think
it your position).
Sure, but the contents of the skull is an object that extends over
multiple branches of the Multiverse.
Comp implies that such CGB exists. That CGM can
be emulated by a turing machine, why would it matter the emulation
is done by dovetailing from the first person point of view?
Because in the 1st person POV, the "inert" parts are not inert.
Only
in the 3rd person dovetailed POV. And, I find it hard to think of
the
dovetailer as conscious.
But put another way, perhaps it means that consciousness
cannot supervene on a physical implementation of a dovetailer.
Which
is probably what you're trying to get to.
I just reason from the assumption. Consciousness would supervene
on
the execution of a physical universal dovetailer. Why wouldn't it?
Because the dovetailer is an incredibly simple program. It hardly
seems conscious. If I ask it a question, it is mute, so the Turing
test hardly helps.
...snip...
It doesn't eliminate the supervenience of the consciousness on
the
simulated physics within the UD. It seems this is in
accordance with
Brent's comments too.
Presumably you would argue that this is simulated matter, not
primitive matter. Sure.
You lost me here. The "primitive matter" in comp is not *a priori*
simulable, it appears below our sharable substitution level.
It may or may not be simulable a priori. Why would a materialist
assume that primitive matter is necessarily nonsimulable?
But what's to stop the primitive matter being
multiversal - whether it can be simulated or not is a little
beside
the point.
On the contrary it is crucial. It makes the difference between
emulable in one reality (in our branch of the quantum multiverse
in
case we imagine a concrete one), which is equivalent with Turing
emulable, or necessitating Non Turing emulable interactions or
interferences with parallel realities.
I don't expect there will be interference between the realities.
Why
does supervenience over multiple branches entail there must be
interactions between realities?
The point is that if it is
Turing emulable, then the MGA applies.
I don't see this.
You have then to believe that
a physical inactive piece has a physical activity relevant in a
particular computation.
The physically "inactive" piece is only physically inactive in one
branch. If the supervenience is across multiple branches, then the
absurdum is no longer.
...snip...
If a dream can supervene on a closed generalized brain Turing
emulation, then it has to supervene to its emulation in one of its
classical instantiation, either in a concrete quasi-classical
(normal) history (or, after MGA, in arithmetic, or in the UD*).
Why?
And
in that single reality emulation, MGA can be applied. If you
give a
role to physically inactive, by making them active in some other
world you are forced to introduce a non Turing emulable *physical*
component in matter playing a role in consciousness, where comp
show
that we get it for free below our substitution level.
Why?
...snip...
The UD is not conscious, as a person, but once you add the
supervenience thesis, it instantiates consciousness at each
moment
where it executes a conscious program (say Russell Standish's
one,
then Bruno's one, etc).
Why does this depend on supervenience?
I meant "physical supervenience". It is just introduced to get the
contradiction.
MGA is a reductio ad absurdum.
How does this work?
Because Maudlin assumes a single universe physics,
Where? It assumes only the Turing emulabilty.
Its the only way to get inactive parts, and so force the
absurdum. The
assumption is not explicit in Maudlin's work, but its there.
...snip...
You might try to refute the 323 principle as clearly as possible
by
using a *physical* multiverse. I think you will see by yourself
that
you have to endow some primitive Matter with some non Turing
emulable processes at some point.
I don't see the 323 principle as being relevant here - perhaps
you can
explain more why its needed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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
.
