2013/10/18 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
> On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of
> From the paper:
> "What of the crucial question: should Alice1 feel uncertain? Why, Alice1
> is a
> good PI-reductionist Everettian, and she has followed what we’ve said so
> far. So
> she1 knows that she1 will see spin-up, and that she1 will see spin-down.
> is nothing left for her to be uncertain about.
> What (to address Saunders’ question) should Alice1 expect to see? Here I
> invoke the following premise: whatever she1 knows she1 will see, she1
> expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she1 should (with certainty) expect
> to see
> spin-up, and she1 should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down. (Not
> she1 should expect to see both: she1 should expect to see each.)"
> But this is where the basis problem comes in. Why is the experience
> Probably because our substitution level is above (or equal) to the
> "QM-level" (defined by the Heisenberg uncertainty)
> Why doesn't Alice simply experience the superposition?
> She could in case she has a quantum brain (quantum computer brain for
> example) so that she can exploit some Fourier transforms of the thought
> process in the all the terms of the superposition. But you have defended
> often Tegmark's argument that the brain is classical, and so she can
> experience only each branch, for the same reason that the WM-duplicated
> candidate can experience only Washington xor Moscow.
> Yes, but now you're relying on physics to explain why experiences are
> classical - but people keep proposing that experiences or computation are
> fundamental and that physics is to be explained in terms them. In that
> case you can't appeal to the physics to say why the experiences are
Well a computation is "classical"... it's not a superposition of
something... But as we don't know currently how consciousness arises from
computation (nor if it can arises from it), it's premature to ask for an
answer like you'd like. The point of Bruno, is not that consciousness is a
computation only that if it is (turing emulable) then physics as to be
derived from computation alone... and no Bruno doesn't have the complete
description how it is done... only that up to now, the fact that it shows
that there must be a multiplicity (huge) of "dreams" is compatible with
MWI... but he does not know how consciousness arises, how physics, why an
electron has this mass and no other and so on. He has just shown that if
computationalism is true, then physics has to emerge from computation
alone, the work left here (huge) is to show how. If one day you should be
"uploaded" as a computer program, and you still feel as alive as today and
as yourself, it should be a kind of confirmation that it is indeed the
case, even if we have not workout the details how physics emerge from
computation and just worked on how to transfer our consciousness... Well it
would be for me...
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.