On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:11 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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
> 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
Or how it already is (in a world created entirely within the confines of a
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.