On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia, etc. We
intentionally lie... The list of computationally erroneous behavior of
the brain is almost endless. How does this occur given COMP? But I
digress. Explaining "physical reality" is to explain the properties that
it has as opposed to those that it does not, UDA does not do that. It
even presupposes things that are simply not possible in the physical
world, such as teleportation and computations generating knowledge
without the use of resources. Even a Reversible computer requires memory
to compute and memory is a physical quantity.
The notion of teleportation used in UDA is nothing magical or
requiring new physics. The experiments in the UDA can be read as after
someone said "yes" to the doctor and became a SIM(Substrate
Independent Mind), thus after the substitution, they can know one of
their godel numbers/programs (assuming correct observation). This
essentially means that said program state can be transmitted and
ran/instantiated anywhere you want and with any delay or order or
form. A "teleportation" from A to B would merely require the SIM to
stop itself in A, have another program transmit it to B(for example
through the Internet or some other communication channel) and have
someone run it in B, for example on a general purpose
Turing-equivalent computer or more likely a special-purpose digital
brain (for better performance within our physics) with access to an
environment(or more, such as VRs). For all intents and purposes this
isn't any different from me writing a program and you downloading it
and running it on your own hardware. For UDA 1-5 this works trivially.
For UDA 6, it also works, with changes in software. UDA 7 does make a
stronger assumption: the sufficiently robust universe, however one
doesn't really assume strong physical continuity by now (by 1-6), so I
don't see UD even has to be coherently ran all at once and in a
continuous manner (for example a running like that in "Permutation
City" would work just well, "in the dust"). If you do consider some
other 'everything' theories like Tegmark's or Schmidhuber, they also
grant you an UD (and I would venture to say that your neutral
Existence might also grant you such robust universes). UDA 8 you seem
to disagree with, but I don't see what explanatory power could any
primitively physical structure grant you: all possible digitalised
observers and their continuations already have to be in the UD, thus
you cannot use primitive physics for prediction. Thus the only claim
that one could make for saving primitive physics would be that it
allows for consciousness to manifest (for example by implementing the
body). UDA 8 and MGA show that such a claim is specious and
unnecessary. You seem to disagree with it, although its not clear to
me as to why or how. You seem to claim that physical reality isn't
primary (COMP agrees, it emerges from arithmetical/computational
truth), although don't agree with the way it emerges in COMP or its
nature(?)? Does that mean that you don't think that all possible
observers are contained in the UD? To be frank, I'm still rather
confused at what point your theory becomes incompatible or predicts
different things than COMP (given the standard assumptions used in the

Dear ACW,

Please rethink exactly what teleportation requires to be possible. It is
not any different from the ability to copy information.

Yes, COMP assumes that there is a subst. level, which means that stuff below the subst. level may vary (or even look like noise, due to 1p-indeterminacy, we tend to think of this, in our universe, as the quantum foam and the like). A doctor (which is included in the assumption, but if it weren't...) only need be able to copy/emulate either exactly at the right subst. level or slightly below it (copying at a higher level may entail memory loss or functionality loss or worse). What this effectively means is that you don't need to be able to read the full quantum state (which is not possible), but just quasi-classical states, which we can do and which should be either at subst. level or below. (If the subst. level was below, COMP would be practically false, as we do assume that the observer's universal number is at least partially stable at the subst. level). No violation of the no-cloning theorem here. And aside from that we can copy/transmit quasi-classical information pretty well.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to