On 07 Dec 2013, at 17:58, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> What about comp-immortality?

That's what I'd like to know, what the hell is "comp-immortality"? How does it differ from regular run of the mill immortality? Your homemade words acronyms and phrases are getting out of hand.

You can easily conceive many of them.
1) the most prosaical. You get an artficial brain, and you succeed in convincing your descendent to get place for running you in some virtual place (bits and qubits are so expensive those days).

2) the first person understanding: I survive wherever a universal machine run me, and there are infinitely many running me simultaneously in arithmetic: so the real question is how could I even hope this can end? The question get astronomically difficult, but there are bit patterns of information from computer science.







> have you an argument which makes you sure that your consciousness is not related to your computations in arithmetic?

No.

So you are open that consciousness differentiating "fluxes" can be determined by arithmetical truth, letting open the question if the machine dreams (the computations emulated in arithmetic) cohere enough to limit on "unique" multiverse or universe.






> I know you stop at the step 3, but I still don't see why, except your confusion between 1p and 3p.

For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the first person and the third person.


Then you know that from the first person view of the average guy which has undergone an iterated WM-duplication has abandon the task of finding an algorithm predicting his next first person outcome. Its diary contains 001100100011101111001, and well, he can't predict the next one.





> You did not comment the last explanations I gave to you

I've commented on hundreds of your "explanations", I don't know what specifically you're referring to. Did you say something new you hadn't said before? If so I missed it.

I missed, and I think every one missed your point. We are waiting you patiently for finishing the step 3. And proceed. Most people get the point, and indeed it is a simple obvious point, with the definition given for first and third person.

Bruno





  John K Clark




--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to