On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Well done for being obtuse! The platonically malleable urstuff is > usually taken to be integer arithmetic, although any system capable of > universal computation will do, such as Bruno's combinators > example. You appear to be making the dog chase its tail. > But conscious does not supervene on that, for the reasons > given in my paper, but rather on sheaves of computations that make it > up, by assumption of COMP. Not in your sense of requiring physical, concrete realizations: why do we need those? What are they and how do we avoid attributing originality to all your doppelgangers distributed in UD if such is given? > It also must supervene on the emergent > phenomenal physics that arises. That is a raw empirical fact that no > pussy-footing around can eliminate. The MGA demonstrates the > fundamental contradiction between COMP and physical supervenience in a > non-robust universe, consequently the only way to save COMP is for the > universe to be robust. > You pretend that this is common sense. That's much less clear to me. > > You may think robust universes are baroque, but I don't. Infinite, > symmetrical ensembles of universes are simpler from an information > theoretic perspective than specific finite instances. This is > ultimately the strongest argument in favour of platonism. > > But there is a sense that nature doesn't have to play by our > rules. Maybe we really do live in a non-robust universe. If so, we > cannot have our COMP and eat it. > I don't see how stating that UD (straight, not shaken or stirred with Quantum computer material stuff actualizing) is too cumbersome to realize physically wherever it is that we are, gives you convincing leverage concerning consciousness relating to experiential outcome of some A/B experiment, as the relation of selection is invariant for delays and locations of reconstitution. > > As an aside, this week I had the pleasure of attending a seminar titled > "Does infinity exist?" that took the form of a debate between Norman > Wildberger arguing the no case and James Franklin arguing the yes > case. Norm was essentially arguing for a form of ultrafinitism, or > non-robust universe in our terminology, and James for the conventional > neoplatonist status quo. The debate really boiled down to a modern version > of > Aristotle versus Plato. Not only was the seminar room packed (first > time I've seen that), it was not even standing room only. People > spilled out into the corridor, and late comers had to make do with a > glimpse through the seminar doorway. I don't see any real winners > here, but in the debate, Norm probably won on eloquence. > > Thanks for the pdf, the effort of sharing your position, and the extra mile of sharing a sense of some of your personal values/beliefs in that aside. Apparently I don't get it at this point. PGC -- 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.
