On 18 Oct 2013, at 19:48, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/18 meekerdb <[email protected]>
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
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
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. There
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 should
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 that
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 classical?
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 classical.
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,
That's UDA. It provides also the shape of physics, like MW, statistics
on computation, taking track of the difference between 1p and 3p
(which generalize relativity, and Everett), etc.
the work left here (huge) is to show how.
Indeed.
Yet, AUDA (Arithmetical UDA, what I call "interview" in sane04) shows
constructively how, and the propositional logic of observable is given
by a precise theory (X1*).
Of course this is a long way from explaining the whole logic, and thus
the bosons and fermions. But that's not the goal here. The key result
is that incompleteness makes the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge
(the only one I know capable of doing justice to the metaphysical
antic dream argument) given a classical theory of knowledge (S4Grz)
which X1* is an important "physical" variant.
Those logic have the two sides: provable and true-but-not provable,
which is promising to interpret the qualia.
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...
Computationalism will be practiced long before we get the whole of
physics from it. But not so long, as physicists also close the bridge
(with the vertex algebra and number theory per se). They just miss the
non provable intensional nuances, allowed and unavoidable for the
"mystic machine" (looking inward).
I know this asks for some work, but after (or even before, for some)
UDA, there is AUDA. It is only a beginning, of course. And the
remaining task is huge.
The basic idea is very simple though: we can already listen to what
the machines already tell us.
Roughly speaking:
UDA: reality is in our head.
AUDA: reality is in the head of any universal machine. Just ask her
today you need Gödel's tools, but the interview, at the propositional
level, is entirely axiomatized by the Solovay logics (G and G*).
Bruno
Quentin
Brent
--
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.
--
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 [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.
