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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to