On 2/29/2012 4:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2012, at 20:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Digital physics says that the whole universe can be substituted with
a program, that obviously imply comp (that we can substitue your
brain with a digital one), but comp shows that to be inconsistent,
because comp implies that any piece of matter is non-computable...
it is the limit of the infinities of computation that goes through
your consciousness current state.
Can you see how this would be a problem for the entire digital
uploading argument if functional substitution cannot occur in a
strictly classical way, for example by strictly classical level
measurement of brain structure? Any dependence of consciousness on
quantum entanglement will prevent any form of digital substitution.
This is not correct. It would only make the comp subst. level lower,
for we would need to Turing-emulated the entire quantum system. What
you say would be true if a quantum computer was not Turing emulable,
but it is. Sure, there is an exponential slow-down, but the UD does
not care, nor the 'first persons' who cannot be aware of the delays.
This might not be a bad thing for Bruno's ontological argument - as
it would show that 1p indeterminacy is a function or endomorphism of
entire "universes" in the many-worlds sense - but would doom any
change of immortality via digital uploading.
Did you not see this last comment [SPK2] that I wrote? We need to
distinguish between the actions on and by physical systems, such as
human brains, and the "platonic" level systems. Your remark seemed to be
one that was considering my comment [SPK1] as if it where discussing the
Platonic level aspect. This is just probably a confusion caused by our
use of the same words for the two completely different levels. For
example, a physical system is a UTM if it can implement any enumerable
recursive algorithm, aka is "programable" in the Turing Thesis sense,
but its actual behavior is limited by its resources, transition speeds,
etc. An abstract Platonic Machine, such as what you consider in SANE04,
does not have any such limits.
I think that we should consider a formal way to describe these
relations. Perhaps some one that is fluent in Category theory will come
to help us in these discussions. We need a way to define the idea of
"the limit of the infinities of computations that go through a given
consciousness state" in a way that is more clear given that "a given
consciousness state" is still a very ambiguous notion.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at