On 2/17/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note that Bruno answers the concern that interaction/entanglement with the environment
by saying that the correct level of substitution may include arbitrarily large parts of
the environment. I think this is problematic because the substitution (and the
computation) are necessarily classical.
I don't see why this would be a problem. Quantum computation is Turing emulable. So, if
my state is my "complete" quantum state, then I am entangled with the whole universe,
and this would only mean that the quantum dovetailer on the vacuum state wins the
"measure battle". This would be rather astonishing, but is not logically impossible.
Now, if true, we have to show, once we assume comp, that such is the case. It would mean
that the only semantics of the material hypostases (the modal logic of the family
S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*) would contains the quantum computing machinery. That is not impossible.
Note also that this would not prevent local duplication, à la "yes doctor", providing
some quantum swapping of the entanglement between "me" and the physical universe.
Yes I understand that the substitution, even of a (quasi) classical device, can still be
successful because it will be entangled too (in fact that's what makes it
quasi-classical). I only think it is problematic in that it undermines the idea that mind
and material, thought and physics, are different. If you have to either emulate, or use,
a lot of the material world to instantitate consciousness then it is very much like
recovering the view that consciousness supervenes on the material (even though the
material is not fundamental).
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