On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this
is
speculative, as nobody has found anything not Turing emulable in
nature.
You say this often, Bruno, yet I have never seen an emulation of any
living
system that functions the same as the original.
This is not a valid argument. I have never seen a man walking on Mars,
but this does not make it impossible.
With comp we cannot emulate a rock, so we can't certainly emulate a
living creature, as it is made of the apparent "matter", which needs
the complete UD*.
But with comp all universal machine can emulate any universal machine,
so if I am a program, at some levcel of description, the activity of
that program, responsible for my consciousness here and now, can be
emulated exactly.
The default position is that it is not emulable.
On the contrary. Having no evidence that there is something non Turing
emulable playing a role in the working mind, beyond its material
constitution which by comp is only Turing recoverable in the limit
(and thus non emulable) to bet that we are not machine is like
speculating on something quite bizarre, just to segregationate
negatively a class of entities.
This is almost akin to saying that the Indians have no souls, as if
they would, they would know about Jesus, or to say that the Darwinian
theory is rather weak, as it fails to explain how God made the world
in six day.
We have no a priori reason
to assume we can substitute one thing with another thing of an
entirely
different class.
Nature does that all the time.
We did it already consciously when we accept a pump in place of a
heart, or even when we just buy glasses.
Some people will accept an artificial hypo campus, just because they
need a way to stock new long term memories, and the doctor claimed it
is the only known way to help a patient.
We have no more reason to assume that we can substitute a
brain with an emulation of a brain than we have that we can
substitute a
building with a drawing of a building
LISP can pass the FORTRAN test. It can emulate precisely FORTRAN. The
very hypothesis of digitality is what makes possible the confusion of
level, at some precise level (and below).
Nobody asks you to believe it works, but until we find a real evidence
against comp (like a different physics), it is a matter of personal
opinion.
- even if it is so accurate that the
illusion of it being a building is perfect at first glance. You
still can't
live in a drawing.
The drawn people can live in a drawing. It sounds weird, because you
have gone used the statical "drawing" in place of the dynamical
"emulating".
A virtual typhoon cannot make you wet, unless you have been
virtualized before. An emulated typhon can make wet emulated people,
with comp.
There is no contradiction as we assume that the brain, even in the
generalized sense, is a universal emulator, so that *you* are already
emulated by a natural organic computer.
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Right.
Nor is it possible to show it is finite.
But we can do theories, and reason in those theories, and then compare
with the observations, etc.
Measurements just can't yield infinity.
It is like the natural numbers. You can't see that there are
infinitely many
of them by using examples.
Indeed.
You just have to realize it is inherent to
natural numbers that there's always another one (eg the successor).
In the same way, nature can only be seen to be infinite by realizing
it is
an inherent property of it. There simply is no such thing as complete
finitiness. No thing in nature has any absolute boundary seperating
it from
space, and there is no end to space - the notion of an end of space
itself
seems to be empty.
Assuming space exist. But OK.
We approach the limits of science here, as we leave the realm of the
quantifiable and objectifiable, so frankly your statement just seems
like
scientism to me.
It would be if I was pretending to defend a truth, but I am just
humbly showing the consequence of a belief.
From a mystical perspective (which can provide a useful fundament for
science), it can be quite self-evident that everything that exists is
infinite (even the finite is just a form of the infinite).
Ha Ha !
You gently set the trap.
I can say this: if comp is true and if both you and me, and the
readers, are consistent, then you can understand, soon or later, why
if you are correct, you lost correctness when appealing to that
experience of the infinite.
If not, *you* are the scientist speculating on a possibility which can
lead to a prohibition of a entheotechnology (artificial prosthesis
without any organ single out).
A more pratical question would be "how / in which form does infinity
express
in nature?".
In nature, and in psychology, theology, etc. Yes, that is a
captivating subject. Infinities abound everywhere, and the trouble of
comp is that a priori there are too much of them, but then, is it any
more than physics? That's what remains to be tested.
Of course this is an unlimited question, but I see some aspects
of nature that can't be framed in terms of something finite.
First uncertainty / indeterminateness. It might be that nature is
inherently
indeterminate (principle like heisenbergs uncertainty relation
suggest it
from a scientific perspective)
Well, not really. But OK.
and thus can't be captured by any particular
description. So it is not emulable, because emulability rests on the
premise
that what is emulated can be precisely captured (otherwise we have
no way of
telling the computer what to do).
Keep in mind that comp justifies precisely that matter, nor
consciousness is emulable.
Comp makes only consciousness relatively emulable, with respect of
only probable computations.
The first person actual moment is literally distributed on a complex
(very probably fractal) clouds of computational states.
Secondly entaglement. If all of existence is entangled and it is
infinite in
scope then everything that exists has an aspect of infiniteness
(because you
can't make sense of it apart from the rest of existence). Even tiny
changes
in very small systems might me non-locally magnified to an abitrary
degree
in other things/realms. This means that entanglement can't be truly
simulated, because every simulation would be incomplete (because the
state
of the system depends on infinitely many other things, which we
can't ALL
simulate) and thus critically wrong at the right level.
Perfect description of the main feature of matter and consciousness in
the comp theory.
With comp, if electrons still exist (in Z1*, say), we cannot emulate
them exactly as we would need to emulate in one instant, all the steps
of the UDs, so you are right indeed.
It might be possible to simulate the behaviour of the system
outwardly, but
this would be only superficial since the system would be
(relatively) cut
off from the transcendental realm that connects it to the rest of
existence.
OK. Comp assumes that nature made that cut off all the times, and we
even survive through it. Meaning also that the first person does not
really cut herself of. By Bp & p, linking the belief to truth, she
keep intact her ombilical chord to "God". Price: she lost her name and
naturally believe that comp is false.
Nature and humans cut off all the times for the same reason that you
cut off yourself when buying a car, instead of a horse: a car
emulates correctly the function of the horse you were needing, and it
looks like it is more economical.
The holism is not generated in nature, the holism is the reflect of a
deeper holism in the relations between the numbers, or any
hereditarily finite things.
For example if someone's brain is substituted he may behave
similarily to
the original (though I think this would be quite superficial), but
he won't
be connected to the universal field of experiencing in the same way -
because at some level his emulation is only approximate which may
not matter
much on earth, but will matter in "heaven" or "the beyond" (which is
what
counts, ulitmately).
Actually your question makes sense, in the situation where the
substitution level does not exist, or if the doctor got it wrong, and
uses a too much high substitution level. That is why it is risky, and
that should be explained in the artificial brain user guide.
By definition, I would say, if the level is correct, then we get the
theology of the Löbian machine, and that is an entire complex field of
investigation (begun with G, G*, S4Grz, and the Z and X logics). If
comp is correct and the level is not correct, we can create complex
path in the Mindscape, and bad experiences are possible. I think they
can be modeled with logics like G+Bf, or G+BBf, etc., and their
corresponding starification à la Solovay: (G+Bf)*, or (G+BBf)*.
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.
