On 23 Feb 2012, at 15:12, marty684 wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, February 23, 2012 4:48:10 AM
Subject: Re: The free will function
On 22 Feb 2012, at 18:17, marty684 wrote:
Bruno,
If everything is made of numbers (as in COMP)
Nothing is "made of". Everything appears in the mind of Universal
numbers relatively to universal numbers, with hopefully reasonable
relative statistics.
Think about a dream. If you dream that you drink coffee, you can
understand that such a "coffee" is not made of anything. The
experience of coffee is due to some computation in your brain. With
the big picture apparently implied by comp, even the brain is like
that dreamed coffee: it is not made of anything. It is only locally
made of things due to the infinitely many computations generating
your actual state.
The "matrix" metaphore, or the Galouye "simulacron" metaphore is not
so bad.
And we don't need more than the numbers + addition and
multiplication to get an initial dreaming immaterial machinery.
Thanks for this vivid clarification. But...
Read UDA. You might understand that if we are machine (numbers
relative to other numbers), then we cannot knowwhich machine we
are, nor which computations supports us, among an infinity of them.
Everything observablebecomes probabilistic. The probability bears
on the infinitely many computations going through your actual state
(that's why they are relative).
Why should probability depend on us; on what we 'know or cannot
know' ? On what is 'observable' to us? It seems to me that you are
defining probability by that which is relative to our 'actual
states'. Why can't we inhabit a seeminglyprobablistic part of an
infinite, determined universe ?
But that is the case. If you define the reality by a tiny part of
arithmetic (equivalent with the UD), you have a deterministic
structure, which from our points of view will look indeterministic.
The probability are relative to us, because we are the one doing the
experience. Suppose you decide to throw a coin. To predict what will
happen to you you have to look at all the computation accessing the
computational state you have when throwing the coin, and infer what
will happen from a measure on the continuations.
(If you've been over this before, please refer me to the
relevant posts, thanks.) marty a.
Read UDA, and ask question for each step, in case of problem, so we
might single out the precise point where you don't succeed to grasp
why comp put probabilities, or credibilities, uncertainties, in
front of everything. UDA1-7 is enough to get this. UDA-8 is needed
only for the more subtle immateriality point implied by
computationalism.
My attempts to read UDA were never successful. Sorry.
May be you have a problem with my english. Please, begin by the step
one, on page 4 of sane04, read it, and tell me precisely what you
don't understand in the step 1. I might need to re-explain comp to
you, or you can glance its definition on page 2.
When you will grasp step 1, we will be able to go to the 2th step, and
so one.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
