Bruno: We assume comp, which requires consciousness by definition. Richard: I sure did miss that part. I presumed that consciousness required life. Could you explain a bit why comp requires consciousness with or without life? I do not even understand how something can be required by definition.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 20 Aug 2014, at 15:42, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Bruno, > > Could you explain again why a measure is needed in Everettian Many World > Theories? > > > To justify the probability used with the Born Rule (asssuming the SWE, QM) > > In comp, we don't assume QM, but we need a measure to justify the > stability of the physical laws, or the invariant in the observations. > > > > Your 1p observer requirement for measure suggests that the physical came > from life. > > > Hmm... Life of the numbers, in a different sense that "terrestrial life". > > > > > I have asked you this before and your response is that the universe would > still evolve > but "weakly", whatever that means, in the absence of observers. > > > ? > I don't remember. > All this is justified by the UDA, in the comp (not related a priori to QM) > frame. > > > > > The requirement for observers in my mind makes comp equivalent to the > Copenhagen Interpretation CI > in the need for conscious observers and is falsified along with CI for > that reason. > > > We assume comp, which requires consciousness by definition. Then the TOE > is given by two little formula like: > > Kxy = x > Sxyz = xz(yz) > > And nothing more. I could take only addition and multiplication of natural > numbers. > > You might miss something in the UDA, which should answer your question. > > Bruno > > > > > Richard > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 19 Aug 2014, at 03:37, John Mikes wrote: >> >> On 8/18/2014 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> The laws will always assured the existence of computations in which you >> survive, and have that quantum MW aspects, but in some consciousness state >> we might live some "phase transition" between different physical realms. >> Obviously, we cannot get a physical reality in which there is no observers >> at all. >> >> >> Why not? Are you saying there must have been observers in the early >> universe, even before the recombination? Must there be observers observing >> the interior of stars for them to be "physically real"? What does >> "physically real" mean in your theory? >> >> Brent >> -------------------------- >> Physically real is our religion as 'lately human scientists' where theory >> is god. >> >> >> Hmm.... Physically *primitive* is the (aristotelian) theology of most >> scientists and philosophers, sometimes not realizing that it is a theology. >> >> Theory = hypotheses, without which there is no science (= doubt). >> >> >> >> >> It comes through the (development)evolution of us, humans into a >> "know-it-all"- all explaining animal. >> BTW in my agnosticism (sorry, Bruno) the OBSERVER is *anything* that >> observes - i.e. notices *anything* at all. >> >> >> It is too vague, so I agree by default. I prefer to ask for a universal >> number, just to fix the thing, but both with comp and with Everett QM, we >> can extend the notion of observer greatly. No problem. >> >> >> >> No 'existence' is identifiable without observers, >> >> >> No *physical* 'existence' is identifiable without observers. But the >> existence of 17 is independent of us, in any scientific context rich enough >> to postulate computationalism. >> >> >> >> the world would be a heap of unrelated singularities by/for themselves. >> >> >> Why? >> >> >> >> No arithmetix either! >> >> >> Then you are not agnostic on the computationalist hypothesis. By some >> miracle, a bit like Craig, you seem to believe that you know that comp is >> false. I am agnostic, and will be, as long as comp is not refuted. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> John M >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 8/18/2014 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> The laws will always assured the existence of computations in which you >>> survive, and have that quantum MW aspects, but in some consciousness state >>> we might live some "phase transition" between different physical realms. >>> Obviously, we cannot get a physical reality in which there is no observers >>> at all. >>> >>> >>> Why not? Are you saying there must have been observers in the early >>> universe, even before the recombination? Must there be observers observing >>> the interior of stars for them to be "physically real"? What does >>> "physically real" mean in your theory? >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> 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/d/optout. >> > > > -- > 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. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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.
