On 28 Oct 2012, at 00:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:13:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323 principle,
but I forget what is your problem with the movie-graph/step-8, then.
If you find the time, I am please if you can elaborate. I think
Russell too is not yet entirely convinced.
Indeed I still have problems with step 8, and want to get back to
that. But I want to do it when it when you're not exhausted arguming
Ah well, that's nice.
Part of the problem, is that I already agree with the
reversal at step 7, so in some sense step 8 is redundant for me.
That is interesting. You are not alone. I have made attempt to make
that precise, and it leads to some use of stronger form of Occam razor.
How do you answer the person who get the 1-7 points, and concludes (as
he *believes* in a primary material world, and in comp) that this
proves that a physical universe, to procede consciousness, has to be
"little" (never run a big portion of the UD, so that it maintain the
brain-consciousness identity thesis).
I understand that a familiarity with digital machines and computer
science can make us feeling that this is really an had move, almost
inventing the physical universe, to prevent its possible explanation
and origin in dreams interferences.
But, still, logically, he is still consistent. he can say yes to the
doctor, and believes he is a "unique" owner of, perhaps in the quantum
weaker sense, primitively material machine/body.
The Movie-Graph is just a way to show more precisely that such a move
is *very* ad hoc, and will ask for non Turing emulable, nor 1-person
comp-indeterminacy recoverable elements in the computation. They can
only been missed by the digitalist doctor, and so it would contradict
the "yes doctor" assumption.
There may be an issue with the interpretation of the 323 principle. I
have no problems with the removal of a register that is never
physically used in the calculation of a consious computation.
nuances arise when we consider Everett's many-minds picture.
Do you mean the Albert-Loewer many-mind theory? I guess you mean it in
a more general sense.
counterfactually used register will still be used by one of my
differentiated copies, and ISTM that these alternate differentiated
minds are essential to my consciousness,
What trans-world, or trans-terms of a superposition, interaction would
made this senseful?
I mean, is the consciousness of the one in Washington dependent of the
consciousness of the one in Moscow?
It *might* be the case, if the brain was a quantum computer. In that
case we could put ourselves in the W+M superposition state, do some
different task, get some result, and then operate a Fourier rotation
on our resulting W'+M' state and extract some consciousness relevant
But if this is what you mean, it would just mean that we need to
emulate the brain at a lower level. A simulation of that quantum brain
can be done classically, and we can reiterate the 323 question at that
and that removing the
counterfactually-used register in this case may well prevent my
To sum up, a counterfactually-used register is being physically used
if many-worlds is accepted, so therefore the 323 principle isn't
In what sense is it more used than the person in Washington and its
doppelganger in Moscow? They both handle just a different part of the
initial person counterfactuals.
Again, that would play a comp genuine role only if there is a
mechanism to extract information from the counterfactuals, but this
means the substitution level is the quantum level, which is still
emulable by, and actually even emulated by elementary arithmetic.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at