Surely, it's because computationalism is a theory of the mind... Don't you think? Le 21 août 2014 11:52, "Richard Ruquist" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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. > -- 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.
