On 29 Mar 2012, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Mar 28, 2012  Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Comp (and MWI) is a deterministic theory.

Many Worlds is deterministic but I don't know about "comp" because "comp" is a homemade term never completely defined and used on this list

Comp is "just" a modern version of Descartes Mechanist assumption. I called it also "digital mechanism". I make it more precise by introducing the notion of substitution level, and in making explicit it is a statement about consciousness. Up to now, you have used correctly "comp" (you just mess the notion of 1 and 3 person). Comp is the hypothesis that we have a body and that we can survive a digital substitution of that body. There is no limit on what that body needs to be except for being Turing emulable. I sum up by a "yes doctor" scenario, which gives an operational notion of "comp practitioner", and which is handy for the thought experiment. To be completely clear on the notion of "digital", I make explicit the Turing-Post-Church's thesis, and the minimal amount of arithmetical realism needed to give sense to that thesis.


and nowhere else.


That few people are aware of the consequence of comp is not invalidating the reasoning.


I don't even know if I agree with "comp".


So you go back at step zero now?
You were saying that everyone believe in comp sometimes ago.





I will say that I know of no law of logic that demands that every event have a cause.

Sure. This is even exemplified by the WM duplication. For the guy in W, it really looks like he is chosen between {W, M} without a cause. Same for the guy in M.

Logic per se does not even concern events and cause, just valid or invalid reasoning, whatever the matter subject.




> 3 POV could be called the bird view, the totality view (the view in which comp and MWI are deterministic), 1 POV the frog view

Then from the "1 POV", the important point of view because that's the one we live our lives, things are not deterministic.

Nice to hear that. So you do see the difference between the 1-POV and the 3-POV.

To be sure I would not follow Quentin in calling them frog and bird, because it gives an impression that it is a question of scaling, when it is more a question of personal points of view (which are modeled by modal logic through the self-reference in AUDA). Tegmark used frog and bird in the sense of: described by a term (the frog) of a quantum wave superposition, and the whole wave itself (the bird). Comp suggests that the quantum indeterminacy might be a particular case of the classical comp-1-indeterminacy, but this is not yet proved, and besides the whole UDA will show that if QM is correct, then it has to be that case, with the price of having to derive QM from the global computationalist indeterminacy, that is the one bearing on the universal dovetailing or elementary arithmetic. But this needs step 7.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to