On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:29:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > I don't think it is that simple. If we have substrate independence, > the machine (the conscious person) cannot tell what substrate is > supporting the computations, whether arithmetic, a quantum world, or > a classical Newtonian world. That would seem to imply that mere > consideration of conscious observer moments cannot distinguish > between these. Or else you feel the full force of the conundrum > enunciated above: if observer moments imply a quantum reality, then > the machine can indeed determine its substrate, and substrate > independence is lost. >
You're still missing the point. The quantum reality is a 1p thing, it is the observed phenomenal physics. Substrate independence is a 3p thing, and may be quantum, classical or whatever, just needing to support universal computation. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
