On 15 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a
simulation (or that comp is wrong).
An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say.
Yes, and Terren.
I think the answer is more complex than that. The simulation is
locally finite, but so are all simulations.
OK.
There is still FPI going on in the "rogue" simulation - the one
where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are
infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative
physics.
You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not
make sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of
physics than us, with a very different histories and geographies and
biologies.
The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno
It is a complex question.
is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an
alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has
memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in
"our" physics.
At which level? What does that mean?
For example, in the alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is
embodied in a completely different kind of biology, a biology that
is not compatible with our physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be
uploaded to a simulation running in our physics, but it is no longer
clear which measure is more probable. It seems possible to me that
Glak's measure is greatest in the alternative physics.
No problem with that. Then we will not fail him from his first person
perspective, because he will go back there in a nanosecond. And the
poor 3p-I staying here with us, well, he will suspect something too,
soon or later, for the preview reasons.
This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate "probability" in
arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us,
and that can be approached by some modal logics related to
arithmetical self-reference. It is hard for me to really decide if
UDA is more simple or more complex than AUDA, on the heart of the
subject. You might tell me, soon or later :)
Bruno
Terren
--
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.
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.
