On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/8/2014 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Brent, > > I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is something > "real" about the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of realism > that does not involve a "god's eye view" by appealing to the possibility of > coherent communication between multiple observers. Observers being defined > as intersections of an infinite number of computations, ala Bruno's > definition. We do not need an ontologically primitive physical world, we > only need a "level of substitution" so that the "Yes, Doctor" choice is > possible. > > > Notice that you had to put "real" in scare quotes - because it isn't clear > what it means. I think the conclusion is that, in Bruno's MGA, the inert > program needs to include a great deal, essentially a whole universe. That > doesn't make it wrong, but to me it makes it less interesting. It would be > surprising than an inert program could implement consciousness in this > world, since it couldn't interact with this world. But if it's conscious > within it's own world, then it's just like any other simulation (e.g. The > Matrix). > Or how it already is (in a world created entirely within the confines of a hollow bone). Jason -- 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.
