On 22 Dec 2011, at 19:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/22/2011 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Quantum computing is a specific process of exploiting entangled
states. I do not mean that, and think it unlikely that nature works
that way (contra Penrose). Supervenience over multiple MW branches
does not entail that sort of quantum computing.
But if would make comp false if that kind of supervenience is not
??? I don't see how to parse that. How can supervenience be the
kind of thing that is Turing emulable?
I agree. I expressed myself badly.
I thought we were talking about consciousness supervening on the
physical processes of a brain and then asking what about those
processes instantiated consciousness. If the answer is the function
computed, then we suppose consciousness should supervene on the same
computation no matter how realized.
It is not the function. But the process described at some level. If it
was the function, then the classical vacuum, that is nothing, would
implement a UD.
Since quantum MW is presumably computable, the we may suppose
consciousness supervenes on the computation of the MW...but not on
that of a single branch.
Why? This would introduce many zombies in the emulation of the MW in a
single branch. This move seems ad hoc and contrary to the comp
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