On 5/6/2017 12:59 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 6 May 2017 8:08 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 5/6/2017 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly why I used arithmetic as the example.
Arithmetic, according to your theory of
consciousness, is independent of perception and
physics. Conscious thoughts, beliefs are entailed
by arithmetic and so should be independent of tequila.
That does not follow. Even Robinso Arithmetic can
prove that a machine drinking some amount of tequila
will prove anything.
That would be impressive. Is this proof published?
It is trivial. RA computes all states reaction in all
computational histories. RA is a universal dovetailer, to be
short. In the simulation of tequila + brain, people get drunk.
That's what I was afraid of. Your theory successfully predicts it
because it predicts "everything", including people drink tequila
and don't get drunk.
Yes, but the key is the measure, isn't it. Everett also predicts that
everything consistent with QM happens. Somehow this leads to a
probabilistic account of what to expect. We know the math but we don't
know the reason. You're no doubt bored with my banging on about Hoyle,
but I must say that his is so far the only metaphor that has ever
conveyed to me how something could be both certain and uncertain
depending on one's point of view. So I think it's far too tricksy to
say that comp predicts everything (or Everett, or eternal inflation
for that matter). The key is the measure and how that measure
discriminates between the typical, the unusual, and the downright
weird. Open problem, sure, but hardly an empty or pointless one.
But that's what I mean when I say Bruno's theory has no predictive
success. QM (and Everett) would correctly predict that alcohol
molecules in the blood will interfere with neuronal function and THEN
invoking the physicalist theory of mind, i.e. that mind supervenes on
material events, it predicts that your ability to do arithmetic will be
impaired by drinking tequila. It will NOT predict the contrary with
more than infinitesimal probability. So it's misdirection to say that
it's just a measure problem. Without having the right measure a
probabilistic theory is just fantasy...or magic as Bruno would say.
Brent
David
Brent
--
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]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
<https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
