On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 [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. > -- 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.
