Hi Peter,
I have not much time, but why to assume a (primary) physical universe.
There are no evdience for that. Also if my body is a machine", the
universe cannot be a machine, unless I am the universe (which I doubt).
"Computation" is a pre -mathematical concept, and actually, an
arithmetical concept. Once you assume the basic laws of the natural
numbers, (mainly the laws of addition and multiplication), then, all
computations exist (in a sense cloase to "prime number exists": NOT in
a speical metaphysical sense), and the apperance of a physical
universe is a consequence of how the numbers perceive the infinitely
many number relations which run their computations. The physical
reality would be, (if my body is a machine) an internal aspect of
arithmetic seen from inside (and taking our relative personal
indeterminacy into account). A priori computationalism entails that
neither Reality, nor the physical reality needs to be computational.
Then I can argue that computationalism explains consciousness, as
another modality of self-presence in arithmetic. Consciousness is the
knowledge of one 1-self, and we get it for free by just applying the
most calssical definition of knowledge to Gödel's (machine's)
provability predicate. And the theory is testable, as physics is
explained in all details by that theory of consciousness, so we can
compare with nature (and its fits pretty well, I would say).
I don't know why people want hardware for computation, as there is no
evidence for hardware, nor can it explain anything (by the UDA
result). Computability is a purely arithmetical notion. It is a
theorem that all machines' "dream" exist in arithmetic. It is an open
problem if that define a universe, a multiverse, or only a multi-dream.
You have NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL APPEARANCES => HUMAN
CONSCIOUSNESS
Best,
Bruno
On 26 Aug 2015, at 10:02, Peter Sas wrote:
I thought Tipler's theory is that there will be an actual physical
computer that will be able to do all possible computations as the
Universe collapses - although since he came up with the idea it has
been shown that the Universe won't collapse in the required way.
Yes, it's not Tipler's main theory, which is the one about
'resurrection"... But he also suggested this idea: that the platonic
existence of mathematics might be enough for the simulation of
physical universes with consciousness in them...
Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness a problem in the
computerless computation scenario?
Yes, this is an unfortunate formulation on my part. The hard problem
is of course a problem for all computational approaches....
Personally I take the hard problem very seriously. I think it shows
that consciousness cannot be fully understood in computational
terms: the what-it's-likeness of consciousness, its involving
qualia, cannnot be accounted for computationally. I think this may
give us a 5th option:
(5) Consciousness, being inexplicable in computational terms, can be
the hardware that ontologically precedes the computations that
ourput the physical universe. How might this work? Here I would like
to invoke an idea from the American idealist philosopher Josiah
Royce, who argued for the infinite complexity of complete self-
awareness. To be self-aware is to be aware that one is self-aware,
and aware that one is aware of one's self-awareness... and son on.
So, as Royce pointed out, there is a recursivity to self-awareness
that mirrors the recursion that generates the natural number system.
Similar ideas were brought forward by the German philosopher/
mathematican Oskar Becker. Anyway, what this suggests is that if we
postulate a primordial self-awareness as the foundation of all
reality, then that self-awareness through its recursivity could be
said to be aware of all natural numbers (the hierarchy of its
reflective levels) and thus also of all relations between them, i.e.
all computable functions. And since it is basically a self-awareness
it singles out those algorithms for 'special attention' that best
mirror its self-awareness by forming universes with conscious beings
in them. Of course, the question remains why one should postulate
the existence of such an absolute self-awareness as the basis of all
existence. My guess is that such a self-awareness can bootstrap
itself into existence: if esse est percipi, then the ultimate
observer only exists because it observes itself. It has often been
remarked that there is a circularity in self-awareness. In my view
this circularity is what makes it causa sui. Royce's story then
allows us to conceive of this absolute self-awareness as a
computer... The idea that an absolute self-grounding self-awareness
underlies existence can by the way be found in Plotinus, the Indian
vedanta and German idealism (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel). Royce allows
us to take this idealism into a computational direction. It is
something I am working on...
Peter
--
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.
