On 8/8/2014 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Aug 2014, at 14:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:




                  I've had two relatives die of Alzheimers and they certainly 
did
                not seem to be the same person as when they could remember 
things.


            Do you figure 5 year old Brent would appear to be the same person as
            present day Brent to an external observer? Yet you can probably 
remember
            being 5 year old Brent.

Exactly the sense in which I'm that person by continuity of memories. And in which I am not Telmo or Bruno.


        That's the rational conclusion if we assume emergentism. The trouble is 
that,
        if we assume we are all the same person going through MWI/FPI style
        duplications, we get a reality that is also exactly consistent with 
empirical
        experience, including Alzheimers and childhood memories.

        Exactly.  By redefining "same" we create an untestable theory, but one 
that is
        useful to Depak Chopra.


    Do you know of a testable theory that addresses the hard problem?

    Classical computationalism. The solution is that G* proves []p <-> []p & p, 
but the
    machine cannot believe it, still less know it.
    For the qualia, and perhaps the quanta, you need the weaker versions: []p <-> 
[]p &
    <>p & p, or [] & <>p <-> []p & <>p & p.


Ok, but is this falsifiable in the Popperian sense?

Yes. Such *classical* computationalism is refutable in the Popperian sense. The FPI "probability one" has to be given, by UDA, by the logics obeyed by the first person notions ([]p & p, []p & <>p, []p & <>p & p), restricted to the sigma_1 sentences (the arithmetical Universal Dovetailer). If the math did not show that quantum logic and quantization appears there, classical comp would have been already refuted (or QM is false, or we are in a simulation/dream, etc. That is true for all empirical refutation, and Popper does not really push his own logic enough far).

But is there not a world where classical physics holds?

Brent

--
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/d/optout.

Reply via email to