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.

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.


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)*.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to