On 10 Jul 2017, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/07/2017 7:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jul 2017, at 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/07/2017 12:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jul 2017, at 14:22, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 6/07/2017 5:55 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
And assuming conscious classic digital machines, quantum
phenomenology
appears at the observed level - a result in line with Bruno
Marchal's
FPI result.
Prove it. Bruno has failed to do so -- his person duplication
thought experiments do not reproduce quantum behaviour.
Which one? Z1*, X1*, or S4Grz1? If you know about a physical
facts contradicting those theories, I would be pleased to know.
The person duplication experience just shows that physics is
given by a "sum" on all computations, seen from internal points
of view imposed by incompleteness, and until now, as modest as
the results can be, the three propositional physics are still not
refuted. I am not sure you have studied them, because you have
shown not knowing the basic theories needed to apprehend them, so
it looks you are just inventing something here.
The point that I was trying to make to Russell was the fact that
purely classical machines can exhibit consciousness means that you
cannot derive quantum mechanics from consciousness alone.
That depends on your assumptions. If my consciousness, or my 1p
experience are invariant for a physical digital substitution, in
virtue of computing, then there is just no choice in the matter.
Let me spell out the argument more clearly. If consciousness implies
that the world is quantum mechanical (one can derive quantum
mechanics from the existence of observer moments), then it follows
that consciousness is not possible in a non-quantum world (modus
tollens). But a Turing machine is not a quantum device;
OK. It is an arithmetical entity.
it could exist in a non-quantum world
Indeed, at least seen from outside, in the 0p view. OK.
and exhibit consciousness (given the appropriate computations), so
something has to give -- either the derivation of the quantum from
the existence of consciousness, or digital substitution of
consciousness (substrate independence). Take your pick.
The machine "lives", or "exists" in the arithmetical reality, in the
eyes of god (in the 3p absolute view, or in the 0p view), but from its
first personal perspective (1p view) it lives provably in a quantum
reality. Then we can test if the quantum reality of the machine
violates or not the quantum that we infer from nature.
You must not identify: "the machine is in arithmetic", with the
machine's point of view access only a quantum reality (the reality of
all computations going through its current states, below its
substitution . We need to always make clear which pov we are talking
about. The UDA showed that the physical is 1p plural statistical. It
is not a 3p view.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
