On Fri, May 8, 2015 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: >> Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because > today we know something that Laplace did not: even very small changes in > initial conditions can increase the number of calculations required to make > a prediction enormously, it will increase them to infinity if space or time > is continuous. And today we know that even in theory it takes time and > energy to make a calculation, and the faster you make it the more energy > you need. If you calculate too slowly the event you're trying to predict > will have already happened before you finish, and if you calculate too > quickly you produce so much waste heat you'll alter the system you're > trying to predict. >
> > That is an interesting objection, but not one that's really relevant to > the case at hand (distinguising dynamical chaos from teh FPI). Indeterminacy means uncertainty, maybe my senses just haven't given me enough information about the present to predict the future, or maybe the computation is so big that by the time I complete it the future will have already arrived, or maybe the trouble is the Halting Problem and there is no shortcut so if I want to know what the universe is going to throw at me next all I can do is wait and see. Or maybe it's just that some events have no cause. Any of this things will result in me (the first person) being uncertain (indeterminate) about the future. Bruno claims and you agree that he has found an additional source of uncertainty but neither of you can coherently elucidate exactly what it is. > >> And even if we ignore the above objection the daemon might know what >> we will do next but the daemon couldn't tell us because then the daemon's >> own behavior would alter the prediction; I might be of a argumentative >> frame of mind and be determined to do the exact opposite of whatever the >> daemon said I was going to do. In that case to figure out what I would do a >> mega-daemon would be required to figure out what the daemon was going to >> predict. >> Obviously before long we'd need a mega-mega-daemon and so on. > > > > Assuming Og has free will, of course. If he doesn't, then it > doesn't matter what Laplace's daemon tells him. > Free will? Oh yes I remember now, that means not doing things because of cause and effect and not not doing things because of cause and effect. In other words free will means gibberish. I said it before I'll say it again, free will is a idea so bad its not even wrong. > >> Not even an infinite string of mega, mega-mega, mega-mega-mega..... >> daemons can answer gibberish questions. > > > >True, but you're implying that what my next experience is is a gibberish > question, And speaking of indeterminacy, in a copying machine or dovetailer scenario the identity of Mr. My is indeterminate so it is indeed a gibberish question. > > when it clearly isn't. What's more, I can find out just by waiting a bit. Who can find out just by waiting a bit? In the philosophy of personal identity personal pronouns have no place, they really REALLY suck! >>> If I am a computation, I cannot tell whether I'm running on a PC or a >>> Mac >> >> >> >> I remind you that both the Mac and the PC are made of matter that >> obeys the laws of physics. > > > > So? Relevance? You tell me, you're the one who brought it up. > UDA 1-7 shows that whatever the ultimate primitive reality is, properties > of matter (ie physics) must only depend on the fact that the ultimate > primitive reality is capable of universal computation. > And the only thing ever found capable of universal computation, or capable of making a computation of any sort, is matter operating according to the laws of physics; nothing else has ever come close, nothing else can even add 1+1. > >> As of today if the laws of physics are not involved nobody has ever >> been able to calculate ANYTHING. That's why people still make >> computer hardware. > > > > Bruno - can you provide a citation to John. He clearly doesn't believe > you. > I don't want a citation! I don't want ink on paper and I don't want to look at pixels on a computer screen, I want to find a business partner who can add 1+1 without using matter or the laws of physics so we can start a computer hardware company and crush the competition because our manufacturing costs are zero. >>> I still don't get it, even today one computer can run 2 separate >> programs simultaneously, so what's your point? > > > >> But it can't simultaneous experience being two different persons. > >> Why not? > > > Because then it would be experiencing being a mad person I see absolutely no reason why one piece of hardware, like one computer or one biological brain, couldn't run 2 completely separate programs that were both intelligent conscious and sane. > >> in the context of Virtual Reality and a conscious AI program that can >> be stopped reset and rerun what does "then and there" mean? > > > > The coordinates of virtual space & time, obviously. > That sounds reasonable, therefore the consciousness of the intelligent conscious program doesn't change in "the here and now" even if it's rerun a trillion times because none of the virtual landmarks change, subjectively it would be exactly the same if the program was only run once. And the same would be true if you play back a recording of the consciousness; such a playback may be of use to a third party watching it but it would do nothing to the intelligent conscious program itself. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
