On 9 May 2015 at 14:58, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> But to really draw that conclusion requires accepting the absurdity of > noncounterfactual program instantiating consciousness. I think more > work is actually needed here, as we're talking about very large > recordings, something like 1e14 bits per second of consciousness > (about 100 Terabytes per second). Replaying this movie in real time is > still many orders of magnitude out from current capability. Normal > HD movies is only about 500KB per second. > However, there is no obvious need to replay the recording in real time. But given those figures we'd certainly want to approach real time, because at the given rate a second of consciousness would require something like 10 years to play back. > > I don't have a stake in the outcome either way - I accept the MWI as > the preferred interpretation of QM, where the MGA neither works, nor > is needed, as ontology is robust. I'm just trying the critique the > argument on its own terms. > What does your comment about the MWI mean here? At first sight it appears to be assuming the result - if comp is true then the MWI has to be recovered from the UD (I think). But I could easily be missing the point. -- 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.
