On 13 Oct 2013, at 08:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Maybe this will help. Here are two criticisms of comp, and two
hypotheses which aim for a more mathematical treatment of PIP
principles under MSR.
Presumption of repeatability (PR) - By overlooking the possibility
of absolute uniqueness,
?
0, s(0), ... are unique.
comp must conceive of all events as locally documented stereotypes
of a Platonic template rather than true originals.
"true original" is too much fuzzy.
This contradicts our intuitions
And?
about the proprietary nature of identity
No, this is confirmed, nit contradicted. The first persons too are
unique, and non divisible, necessarily so from their perspective.
and would seem to counterfactually predict a very low interest in
qualities such as individuality and originality,
Gratuitous opportunistic assertion.
and identification with trivial personal preferences. Of course,
what we see the precise opposite, as all celebrity it propelled by
some suggestion unrepeatability and the fine tuning of lifestyle
choices is arguably the most prolific and successful feature of
consumerism.
That is not argument. Looks like propaganda to me.
Presumption of finite simplicities - Because comp provides
uniqueness only in the form of the relative scarcity of vastly
complex numbers, it can be said to allow for the possibility of
novelty only in one direction; that of more quantity. New qualities,
by comp, must arise on the event horizons of the UD,
Which is were we live here and now.
yet qualia inherently speaks in a language of rich simplicity
instead of cumbersome computables.
That is not an argument.
With comp, there is no new 'one', but in reality, every human
experience is exactly that.
Hypothesis:
Diagonalization of the unique - Because computation lags behind
experience, no simulation of a brain can catch up to what a natural
person can be,
?
since the potential for their uniqueness is immeasurable and
unprecedented. Also, nothing can be copied before it is unique,
?
so PIP flips the presumption of repeatability (PR) so that all
novelty exists as an absolutely new simplicity as well as a
relatively new complexity, such that the continuum of novelty
extends in both directions.
The false dichotomy posed by comp in which we are forced to choose
between the truth of Church-Turing and the existence of an
infinitely low level of substitution for human personhood is exposed
because under PIP, computation is a public repetition of what is
irreducibly unrepeatable and private. Computation can never get
ahead of experience, because computation is an a posteriori
measurement of it.
The computer model of what an athlete will do on the field that is
based on their past performance will always fail to account for the
possibility that the next performance will be the first time that
athlete does something that they never have done before. Natural
identities are not only self-diagonalizing, natural identity itself
is self-diagonalization. The emergence of the unique always cheats
prediction, since all prediction belongs to the measurements of an
expired world which did not yet contain the next novelty.
?
Pushing UD - My admittedly limited understanding of UDA gives me a
picture of the UD as a program which pulls the experienced universe
behind it as it extends the computed realm ahead of local
appearances. It assumes a priori arithmetic truth which simply 'is'
which produces the future from a fixed past.
?
All phenomena are built bottom up from generic, interchangeable
bits. The hypothesis under PIP is that awareness is pushing the UD,
not being pulled by it. Each new number is the residue of an
unprecedented experience as it decays from immeasurable private
qualia into quantifiable public reflections. Every measure requires
a ruler. Some example which is presented as an index for comparison.
A "new Michael Jordan". A third world war. The uniqueness comes
first, and the computability follows - fudging and filling as
necessary, including ways which could be interpreted as supernatural
(retrocausational discontinuities, mysterious lucky coincidences,
etc).
?
Hmm...
You write too well, and that does not help you. It looks like bad
politics. Your approach avoids the problems by deeming them as not
solvable at any level. This kills at the start all possibility of
progressing. *all* your sentences needs a lot of clarification and
justification.
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
