Bruno Marchal wrote
On 07 Jul 2015, at 01:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If there's only one consciousness which is aware of both
Washington and Moscow then asking the body looking at the
Washington Monument what the Kremlin looks like would elicit an
accurate answer. There's no contradiction in information being
transferred from Moscow to Washington any more than transferring
it from a toe to a brain.
Nobody thinks new physics would be needed to explain how a message
moves from your toe to your brain, but new physics would be required
to explain how the Washington Man could accurately say what's going
on in Moscow without using electronics.
So I don't think the Washington Man could do that.
I didn't say they could, I said there was no *logical* contradiction
in them doing so. In fact it's not even a nomological contradiction
because humans could have evolved or manufactured RF communication
devices in their brains such that, when duplicated, the two copies
continued to shared information. But my point was that in Bruno's UD
multiverse there will be universes in which this is the case. So to
show that duplication necessarily entails two consciouses, he needs
to show that our physics and our evolution are necessary, not
contingent.
Bruno appears to believe that the same physics must obtain in all
possible universes, only initial conditions can differ.
Please. You oversimpilfy.
Not at all -- I simply report what you have said.
Quote:
"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."
You see? I say that the physical laws have to be the same for all
universal machine. This is neutral on the question of the existence of
one, two, three or infinity (enumerable, not eneumarable, ...) of
physical universes.
The number of universe is irrelevant, and not what I said. Your claim,
repeated here, is that the physical laws are the same for all existing
universes.
I think Bruno is simply wrong here. For the dovetailer in Platonia
(AUDA), every computable universe is included, and these can have
arbitrarily different physics. Cf. Tegmark's CUH.
Exercise: refute the CUH. Hint: UDA.
Exercise: prove yo youself that the dovetailer running in Platonia
(arithmetic) completely implements Tegmark's CUH.
Proof: Trivially true, since the UD runs all possible programs, it must
run the programs instatiating every computable universe.
The "physical" is what make your experience, not just existing, but
stable and "normal" in some gaussian sense. With comp, we can't exclude
other universe so different that we have non counterparts in it.
See, you say it again. All possible universes are instantiated, even
those that do not support intelligent (conscious) life.
The
fact is that "we" are supported by an infinity of computations, and the
laws of physics are invariant in the way to manage those infinities.
This makes no sense. We need only the computations that constitute each
individual universe. Repetitions are merely the same universe again --
identity of indiscernibles.
My only fear, when young, was that this would lead to classical logic,
from which it would have followed that physics does not exist and is
only a form of geography. That would have make comp somehow trivial
about physics. But that is not the case, there is a complex physical
core shared by all universal beings. Now, it is a complex structure, and
depending of its derivation from the intensional nuances, it might have
different phase allowing different kind of "physical reality". The
picture is just very rich, and unlike physicists, we get the qualia
theory extending the quanta. All this from an hypothesis that almost all
scientists believe in (even when not really knowing the mathematical
theory behind).
By testing the quanta part, we can refute or confirm indirectly the
qualia part.
This reduces to an argument that consciousness is essential for physical
existence. That is manifest nonsense. The universe we inhabit existed
for billions of years before any intelligent or conscious life evolved.
You make consciousness into some ineffable magic that brings physical
universes into being. What utter nonsense.
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.
