On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:04:58AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Dec 2017, at 00:56, Russell Standish wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is the difference you make between an instrument recording the > > > result > > > and an observer? Consciousness? But that is what "Wigner's friend" > > > shows > > > difficult to admit, and besides, I thought we all agree that it is > > > better > > > that QM is the same for conscious and non conscious beings? > > > > > > For me, the most important thing is the continuous/discrete > > transition. I am ambivalent on whether this requires consciousness or > > not. The best examplar to think about IMHO is an analogue-digital > > converter (aka A/D converter), for example the microphone input > > circuit on your computer. Conceptually, this device converts an input > > voltage into a distinct number (eg 0-255). However, in actual fact > > what it does physically is convert a voltage into a time-varying > > voltage signal, conventionally interpreted as the zeros and ones of a > > number communicated serially into the computer (or alternatively, fans > > the voltages out into a parallel array of volatages). That > > "conventionally interpreted" is the wiggle room that smuggles > > consciousness back in the picture. > > > > Nevertheless, the most important aspect is the contrast between the > > continuous and the discrete. Its the FAPP in the zeroing out of > > offdiagonal terms in the einselection picture, as just another > > example. We could probably make most progress on the measurement > > problem by focussing on just that distinction, and ignoring any other > > aspect of consciousness or observerhood, since the continuous/discrete > > distinction should not be controversial to anyone, and a lot in known > > mathematically about it. > > It seems that you are assuming some physical universe, or at least some > analytical universe. But with digital mechanism we can (and apparently > should) assume only a digital discrete inductive structure (natural number > with add and times, combinators with application and reduction, etc.), and > the analytical becomes tools of the mind (and their appearance are justified > from the discrete entities pov).
Not so assumed. Your FPI argument shows how observed physics has a continuous character, yet the domain of knowledge is necessarily discrete (digital mechanism). ISTM that computationalism proves the rule, rather than being a counter example. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] 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 [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.
