On 7/14/2012 7:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of computations making
you singling out some stable patterns" requires the prior existence of the "you" to
select it. The observer (you here) effectively is the measure via a self-selection
rule. I cannot discount my own existence given the immediate fact that I am
experiencing myself as existing. Descartes' Cognito ergo Sum is a pointed statement of
this unassailable fact. We cannot put the observer on a level that is emerging from
the computations if the observer is the one that is selecting the class of
computations that are generating said observer.
How does this comport with Everett's QM which has it that there is no unique,
persistent "you" to do the selecting. It seems a simple matter of logic that any
theory which sets out to explain consciousness cannot assume an observer, on pain of
Interesting. So the unitary evolution of the SWF or state vector is not continuous
over its spectrum or what ever it is called ... the cover or span of the basis?
It's continuous, but decoherence picks out different subspaces which are almost perfectly
orthogonal and correspond to different classical events. There's a different "you" in
each of these subspaces corresponding to seeing Schrodinger's cat alive or dead.
I completely fail to understand your claim here. Could you elaborate on your ideas here.
I am interested in your expertise. I am just a very annoying but well meaning student.
You do understand that absent circularity it is impossible for consciousness to
exist. Go through Descartes' /_Meditations_/ and slow down on the part about "can I
doubt my own existence?" He was not the first to notice that circularity is the hall
mark of consciousness. Why is circularity a bad thing. Please Remind me, I seem to have
That's self-reference, not circularity of explanation.
Actually I'm not particularly against circular explanations - provided the circle is big
enough to take everything in. This idea was suggested to me by Bruno, though he disavows
it. Suppose you had very good (comprehensive, accurate, predictive,...) explanations
denoted by "->" that connected domains like this:
and assuming this circle encompasses everything, then that might be the best TOE we can
achieve. Maybe there is nothing that is FUNDAMENTAL, at least within the scope of our
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
-- Albert Einstein
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