On 17 Apr 2015, at 07:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 06:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
> wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing
that
Bruno
had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of
uncertainty That's hardly what Bruno is claiming.
Step 3 is only a small
step in a logical argument. It shows that if our normal
everyday
consciousness is the result of computation, then it can be
duplicated (in principle - if you have a problem with matter
duplicators, consider an AI programme) and that this leads to
what looks like uncertainty from one person's perspective.
You only get that impression because in Bruno's treatment of the
case -- the two copies are immediately separated by a large
distance
and don't further interact. You might come to a different
conclusion
if you let the copies sit down together and have a chat.
That doesn't make any difference to the argument. "Will I be the
copy sitting in the chair on the left?" is less dramatic than "Will
I be transported to Moscow or Washington?" and hence, I suspect,
might not make the point so clearly. But otherwise the argument
goes through either way.
No, because as I argued elsewhere, the two 'copies' would not agree
that they were the same person.
Separating them geographically was meant to mimic the different
worlds idea from MWI. But I think that is a bit of a cheat.
I don't know where Bruno says he's mimicking the MWI (at this
stage) ? This is a classical result, assuming classical computation
(which according to Max Tegmark is a reasonable assumption for
brains).
In the protracted arguments with John Clark, the point was repeated
made that he accepted FPI for MWI, so why not for Step 3.
Discussion or fruitful argument assume mutual respect. The respect/
civility in the exchange is one-sided however, and has remained so
for years. It's not an argument; closer to an experiment of John to
see how often he can get away with airing personal issues clothed
in sincerity of intellectual debate.
This occupies too much bandwidth and is a turn off from where I'm
sitting. I'd much rather see the comp related discussions go to
address say Telmo's request for clarification in Bruno's use of
phi_i, or G/G* distinctions, or pedagogical demonstrations on "the
work arithmetic existentially actualizes/gets done", clarification
on Russell's use of "robust", physicalist theories that don't
eliminate consciousness etc.
Good and interesting questions indeed.
I, of course would be delighted if people try to really grasp the
phi_i, the G/G* distinction, and the subtle but key point of the
fact that the arithmetical reality simulates computations, as
opposed to merely generates descriptions of them.
I am bit buzy right now. Feel free to tell me which one of those
point seems to you the more interesting, or funky.
Funkiest would be "arithmetical reality simulates computations" aka
free lunch :)
OK, that is important, also. And it is is importantly related to the
difference between a computation and a description of a computation,
which is important in step 8, but also for the very meaning of what a
computation can be.
But I've picked up and guess that people seem to miss use of "phi_i"
or "Sigma 1 sentences" and such terms.
Are you sure? that is mathematics which frighten sometimes people.
So, you thought you could offer me a hand and... I take the arm and
more: 1 of those point = 3 + infinite possibility of "other such
terms". PGC- Zombie hunting armchair ninja of numbers.
OK. Not today, as my deadline for the paper which has been asked by
very nice people, is ... today.
But I will create a thread on the first question above. A difficult
point ...
Liz, it is time to find back your notes, or buy a new diary :)
Don't worry, Liz, I will try to annoy/shake everyone this time ...
Thanks for the suggestion PGC,
Bruno
--
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.
