On 10/28/2012 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Oct 2012, at 21:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/27/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:57 AM, 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.
What bothers me about it is that counterfactuals are virtually infinite. So to
make the argument go through I think it implicitly requires a whole 'world';
Not really, as here, you can use Maudlin who showed that the conuterfactuals does
not require physical activity. In MGA, if you give a role to the conuterfactual, you
violate the 323 principle, so that you attribute a functional role in a particular
computation to object having no physical activity for the actual computation.
But I'm not sure about the 323 principle in a QM world.
Even QM worlds, with QM observers, even having Q brains, are emulated in the UD, or in
arithmetic. If the 323 principles does not hold for them, it might mean that QM is the
winning computation, but then you have to explain this from arithmetic.
Or you are meaning that you need a *primary* QM world and brain? In that case, my
consciousness would not be invariant when the Q brain is entirely simulated by a
classical machine, and comp is made false.
The latter. But why the restriction to "my consciousness"? Only a small fraction of
thought is conscious.
Consciousness is what will select the arithmetical or computer-science-theoretical
branches in the arithmetical reality. It is not a fraction of thought which is
conscious, it is a person, supported by infinities of "unconscious" computations.
If you opt for the latter, you can't accept a digital brain, not even a quantum one, per
computatio.
That doesn't follow. My new digital brain will be entangled with this QM world, just as
my biological one was. It may not be exactly the same consciousness but I think it will
be similar; just as I think general intelligence will always be accompanied by some kind
of consciousness. Supposing this entanglement is necessary is why I think a simulation
must simulate a whole world in order to instantiate human like consciousness.
You negate comp, by putting something magical, needed for your consciousness, in the
quantum material reality.
Not magical. As you often point out, QM is computable. You are making an assumption that
the substitution can be done at the classical level where 'classical' is taken not as an
approximation but to be fundamental.
In that non comp reality you are back with all questions unsolved: where does that QM
reality comes from, how do you singularize actual conscious experiences in it, etc.
Good questions, but just because I don't know the answers it doesn't follow that I should
accept your answer. Your theory also has unanswered questions.
Brent
--
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.
