"But with comp the laws of physics are uniquely determined by a statistical sum on an infinity of computations"
Uniquely determined? That is like saying that The Buckingham Palace is uniquely determined by the statistical sum of a infinity of pieces of lego thrown in the site by infinite B52 bombers. 2014/1/9, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: > > On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:53, LizR wrote: > >> On 9 January 2014 11:40, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote: >> Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes >> as "what data feels like when it's being processed" - hardly a >> detailed theory. He starts his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis from >> the opposite pole to Bruno, so to speak. I wonder if it's possible >> for a particular mathemathical object to drop out of comp - after >> all, we do appear to live in a universe with a specific set of laws >> of physics. Are these the only ones that could be generated by comp >> (or generated by the existence of conscious beings in Platonia) ? >> Maybe one needs to somehow intersect comp with the MUH to get the >> full story! >> >> I think to be conscious you need memory and a sense of time passage >> (although Bruno disputes this when he comes back from a salvia >> trip). To escape solipism there must be objects your perceive, some >> of which act like you, and on which you can act (c.f. Dr Johnson). >> That implies that there must be a quasi-classical world in order to >> support consciousness (at least human-like consciousness). >> >> Those all seem like reasonable criteria. I imagine they could be >> fulfilled by a variety of physical laws (e.g. it probably wouldn't >> make a huge difference to the existence of human beings if light >> travelled 10% faster or slower). So presumably comp covers all >> possible physical laws which create conscious beings... > > > But with comp the laws of physics are uniquely determined by a > statistical sum on an infinity of computations, and is unique (modulo > that multiplication by three, as physics appears in three hypostases). > And the determination is based on the FPI, and so physics is NOT a > priori Turing emulable. The evidence that physics seems computable is > a problem for comp, not an evidence for it. Fortunately the *apparent* > "collapse" might be non-computable enough for comp to be correct. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > -- Alberto. -- 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.
