On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 5:33 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>> those theories have nothing to do with our self identification so why >>> are we even talking about it? >>> >> >> *>Because the problem of self identification becomes a fundamental >> problem in ultimate ensemble theories.* >> > > We don't need the ultimate Theory Of Everything to perform self > identification, we don't have it and yet we can do it. Even Og the caveman > could do it. > http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on. The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. > > > >> *> move on to step 4 of the UDA.* > > > I can't because step 3 is utterly ridiculous, that was obvious to me 2 > minutes after I started reading it 5 years ago and I have found no reason > since then to change my opinion. > > You appear to be experiencing cognitive dissonance. > > >* * >> *If you believe in the computational theory of mind, then all possible >> experiences can be described purely in terms of computation. * >> > > I believe that I computation can produce any mind. And I believe that to > perform a calculation something needs to change. And I believe the only > thing that can change is matter/energy. > If in your entire life you had only seen one red object, would you on that basis conclude that there can only be one red object? > > >> > >> *If physics is about predicting future experiences, * >> > > We use our knowledge of physics to predict future experiences, usually it > works but occasionally it does not. Michelson > predicted that light would travel at different speeds in different > directions due to the Earth's motion around the sun, when he performed a > experiment to confirm this he found he was wrong; he was very surprised but > he did not loose his consciousness or sense of self when that happened, > instead he got a Nobel Prize. > > > True, but irrelevant. If the computational theory of mind is true, then accurate prediction requires the consideration of all possible future computational extensions and their relative frequency in reality. > > >> *then by computationalism, physics is governed by the set and evolution >> of possible conscious computations.* >> > > You've got that backwards. If computationalism is true then conscious > computations are governed by physics. > You believe in the physical existence of other universes besides the one we can see, don't you? > > >> > >>> And the thing that makes matter interesting is that it can perform >>> computations and nothing else can. >>> >> >> >** >> *What evidence do you have for this?* >> > > The Intel Corporation's annual report and the fact that they are unable > to find anything that can change except for matter/energy hence the > justification for the 13.1 billion dollars the company spent last year on > discovering new ways of getting the element Silicon to perform calculations > and the reason the president of Intel has not been fired for wasting money. > That's fairly weak evidence, and I think you realize that. > > https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/ > annual/Intel_Annual_Report_Final-3.20.pdf > > > >> >> >>> I don't see how it could because nobody has found a way to make a >>> calculation without using matter or energy; >>> >> >> *>You say and believe this only because you have defined a computation >> as a physical computation.* >> > > I say that one essential property a computation must have is existence, > and nobody has ever found even a hint of a computation existing except for > a physical computation. I also say mere existence is not enough, even if if > all correct computations exist all incorrect ones exist too, physics can > tell the difference between one and the other and nothing else can. > > > >> >** >> *Let's say there are two physical universes: "Universe A" and "Universe >> B", which do not interact but have similar physics and both have evolved >> intelligent life. We live in Universe A. Would you say that computations >> and computers can exist Universe B, even though Intel can't make use of the >> computations in Universe B?* >> > > The information is not in Universe B in any meaningful sense and will have > to be computed again unless the answer can somehow be communicated to > universe B. > So you agree the the computation can exist in universe B, but for those in universe A to access the result, they need to perform the computation again. Is this right? > If you insist the correct answer already exists in a Platonic sense in > both universes then you have an additional problem, incorrect answers exist > too and there are infinity many incorrect ones and only one correct one, > machines that operate according to the laws of physics is the only way to > find the needle in that infinitely large haystack. > > > >> >>> I know typing ASCII characters onto a computer screen won't work because >>> that is just a list of instructions to DO something, and matter/energy is >>> the the only thing ever found that can change, that is to say DO something. >>> >> >> *>We've previously established that nothing need change in physics. >> The universe can be viewed as an unchanging 4-dimensional block. * >> > > Nothing changes relative to which of the 4 dimensions? The 4-D block > universe is certainly not a simple symmetrical structure, it changes > radically along every one of those 4 dimensions in enormously complex ways. > > > >> > >> *Relativity strongly suggests that is how things really are. You might >> say a "time dimension" is needed for something to happen, but change (in >> terms of something having to stop existing and something new having to >> start existing to take its place) is not.* >> > > Time is one of the 4 dimensions of that block universe, at a different > spacial coordinate the universe will look different and the same is true > for a different time coordinate. If at at event X I don't know the answer > to a calculation but at event Y I do then between X and Y something has > changed, I either made a calculation or received a communication from > somebody who has, and nobody has ever made a calculation or a communication > without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. > So in your view, could this physical structure of matter and energy be a platonic statically existing 4-dimensional structure? Jason -- 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.
