Dear Jason, Interleaving below.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King >> <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi LizR, >>> >>> That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might >>> make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme >>> could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some >>> computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several >>> actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and "point of view". >>> The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the >>> interactions of many "observers" -each one is an intersection of infinitely >>> many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of >>> some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering >>> scheme. >>> Something doesn't seem right about this! >>> >>> It seems to suggest "multi-solipsism" or something along those lines - >> which doesn't make it wrong, of course. >> >> I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said >> something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to >> my limited understanding. >> > > I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is > that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and > short-lived "computational Boltzmann brains" but much larger, long-running > computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life > adapts and evolves. > I agree. I have never been happy with the Boltzman brain argument because it seems to assume that the probability distribution of "spontaneous" BBs is independent of the complexity of the content of the minds associated with those brains. I have been studying this relationship between complexity or "expressiveness" of a B.B. My first guesstimation is that there is something like a Zift's Law in the distribution: the more expressive a BB the less chance it has to exist and evolve at least one "cycle" of its computation. (After all, computers have to be able to run one clock cycle to be said that they actually "compute" some program...) > The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and therefore > it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such as ours > than the case where the computation supporting your brain experiencing this > moment is some initial condition of a very specific program. Certainly, > those programs exist too, but they are much rarer. > RIght, but how fast do they get rarer? > They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program > corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. > It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the > physical system on which it is based. > How do you estimate this? Are you assuming that a lot of data can be compressed using symmetries and redundancies. This looks like a Kolmogorov complexity/entropy... > > So we are (mostly) still "in the same universe", and so we can interact > with and affect the consciousness of other people. > >From my reasoning, the appearance that we are "in the same universe" is a by product of bisimilarities in the infinity of computations that are each of us. In other words, there are many computations that are running Stephen that are identical to and thus are the same computation to many of the computations that are running Jason. This gives an overlap between our worlds and thus the appearance of a common world for some collection of "observers". The cool thing is that this implies that there are underlaps; computations that are not shared or bisimilar between all of us. COuld those be the ones that we identify as "ourselves"? > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.