On 15 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Terren Suydam wrote:

Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to