On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) >>> quantum. But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N >>> qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only >>> retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem). So it >>> doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers. >>> >>> >>> >>> OK, but nobody pretended the contrary. You can still extract N bits >>> depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all >>> results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N >>> computations have to occur in *some* sense. >>> >>> >>> But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist >>> in whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and therefore >>> there must be other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits. >>> What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those interference >>> terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit >>> outputs. >>> >> >> Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness? That's the real >> question. If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least many >> minds). >> >> >> Why is that "the real question"? Saying yes to the doctor implies that >> a classical computer can support consciousness. >> > > Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the > computations that support a mind, there would be many resulting conscious > states, and first person views. > > > Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing. > > No, I am trying to show that given computationalism, there is nothing "fictional" about these computations. They would have very bit the same power to yield consciousness as the computations of a classical computer. Do you disagree with this? > > That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one world is > irrelevant, as all the conscious states exist in the intermediate states, > > > That's your story and you're sticking to it. > Do you disagree? Jason > > 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 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. > -- 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.