On 06 Jul 2015, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jul 2015, at 02:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
so every physically distinguishable history is automatically
included. We don't need to worry about summing over computations
that go through our particular conscious state, or which have
inconsistent extensions (white rabbits). We have only to see
ourselves as instantiated in the calculation that instantiates our
universe (and us in it).
Well UDA is an explanation why this cannot work, or if you prefer,
can only work by a use of a god-of-the-gap argument.
You replace the wrong explanation "God made the universe" by the
non-explanation "There is a universe/or special universal number".
The UDA explains why your approach cannot work --
?
UDA is my approach, and its very goal is to show that comp leads
indeed to a serious problem. Then AUDA shows how to solve that
problem, and gives the solution at the propositional level.
and that quite directly. Since the dovetailer must, by definition,
include the complete set of computations that constitute the
observable universe, anything else is superfluous.
What do you mean by "complete set of computations that constitute the
observable universe"?
The fly in the ointment, as it were, is the fact that as well as
containing our universe,
If that exists.
the UD contains every other possible universe that can be computed.
If that exists. UDA shows that the physical cannot be entirely
computable.
And these additional universes cover all of Tegmark's levels --
universe with different initial conditions, universes with different
parameters, universes with different physical laws, and all in all
possible combinations, each repeated an infinity of times.
You might recognize this -- it is just Tegmark's computable universe
(CU) hypothesis. And it is inherent in the UD as you have given it.
Not at all. COMP is the assumption that "I" am a machine, and UDA
suggests this introduces in the physical non computable elements. The
FPI is not computable.
Unfortunately, this renders your program of trying to recover
physics from self-referentially correct extensions of personal
consciousness impossible. Because all possible physics and initial
conditions are in the UD, you can never select out just one physics,
one universe -- you just jumble them all up
OK.
and nothing consistent could ever emerge.
Proof?
AUDA refutes precisely this. It looks you begin to understand the
problem (UDA), but dismiss the solution (AUDA).
You might call this a "god-of-the gaps" or some such, but it is not
really that. It is just a demonstration that your approach cannot
succeed.
I don't see the demonstration. You have to elaborate.
You can't explain physics in this way; at the moment we would have
to say that if the CU hypothesis is correct, then our universe is
just a given, and no deeper explanation is possible. The universe is
just a 'brute fact', it is what it is.
Only the geographico-historical features can be brute facts. The whole
point is that with comp, physical laws does exist, and are the same
for all universal machine, because they are all under the same FPI on
the same domain (UD*). Physics, unlike geography is justified. may be
this will lead to a physics contradicted by the facts, and so we can,
at that stage, abandon computationalism, or bet that we are in a
perverse emulation build by some alien (or our descendent) wanting to
fail us on physics.
Unless you equate your brain with the entire physical universe/
number, you need to soleve the FPI problem. In fact you must still
show that this solve the measure problem.
There is no longer any measure problem,
By a miracle?
and FPI is no more complicated than the fact that we can't predict
the future with certainty.
Ye, the FPI shows that, and that was not obvious. Look at the
difficulty Boltzmann got to just make classical physical statistics
accepted, and then the problem of the foundation of quantum mechanics.
With comp, everything get very clear (if not possibly true) and we
have a justification of many sorts of randomness playing a role in
observation.
Comp really does not explain any useful detail about consciousness.
The interest in comp is that it leads to a prcise mathematical
formulation of the problem(s), and to precise mathematical
consequences that we can test, and indeed, comp explains the quantum
nature of reality, its symmetrical bottom and its antisymmetrical
sound extension, etc. The eight hypostases gives more useful detail
about consciousness than we could have imagine, nitably thorugh the
vertical ([]p, []p & p, ...) and horizontal (proof/truth) nuances.
And given that it is guaranteed to fail to 'explain' physics,
Proof?
we might wonder why we should bother with it.
We are just searching a theory which explain matter without
eliminating consciousness. Comp does that, and leads to verified
startling consequences.
I think, on balance, that the difficulty of the mind-body problem is
greatly overrated.
That is what aristotelians (physicalist) pretend since at least 1500
years.
It is a most only a conceptual or philosophical problem.
With comp, it becomes a math problem, and I show the solution which
works until now. It is nice as most scientists believe in comp.
To keep comp, we need only to abandon the belief in primitive matter,
which is a metaphysical notion playing no role in science, except for
NOT digging deeper on the consciousness issue.
Since the mind supervenes on the physical brain,
OK, but with comp, MGA shows the primitively physical cannot influence
consciousness, making materialist in need of some magical selection,
like a collapse of a wave.
and both are the product of biological (and physical) evolution,
That is just impossible, even if locally quasi-correct for the human
part of the human consciousness. The devil is in the (UDA) details.
the details of understanding this process are firmly in the realm of
empirical science -- it is basically an engineering problem.
Engineering can only tackle the easy problem of consciousness. Indeed
that is why it is called easy. The hard problem is purely conceptual,
like the existence of after life, it might not have incidence in the
practice (beyond saying yes to a doctor).
You keep talking like if I was proposing some new theory. I just take
the most known theory (computationalism) in cognitive science, and I
show that with computer science we can formulate the problem, and
extract the solution at the propositional level, and then compare it
with the propositional system inferred from nature (like quantum logic).
Bruno
Bruce
--
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.
