On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:08 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 9 May 2019, at 20:47, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/9/2019 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 3 May 2019, at 15:27, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> One way to get around this is to hold that consciousness is associated >> with the way information is processed. >> >> >> >> That is mechanism, but then you inherit infinitely many >> body-representation in arithmetic, and the mind-body problem becomes in >> part a justification of the appearances from a statistic to all >> computations going through our brain. Then incompleteness explains what >> this take the shape of a quantum reality. >> >> >> >> >> This is substrate independent - the fact that a brain is physical is >> beside the point. You could implement a brain in software, and insofar as >> the same kinds of information processing occur, it would be conscious in >> the same kind of way. >> >> >> Only if it exists in the same kind of world. >> >> > Church-Turing implies that the world is irrelevant, so long as it is > possible to build a computer in some universe, > > > In some reality (usually people understand “physical universe” when we use > the term “universe”, but the reality needs only to be anything Turing > complete, so the arithmetical reality is a universe in the general sense: > it runs all programs. > > > > it is possible to instantiate/access any conscious state from that > universe. This is little different from saying you could have a > representation of the first 100 binary digits of Pi in many different kinds > of universes, so long as their physics allows for digital representations. > > Deep-Blue running on a computer in this universe is the same Deep Blue as > one running in an a computer in the Game-of-Life universe, or on a computer > in an alternate (of the 10^500) other string theory universes. CT implies > it is impossible for any software to determine its underlying hardware, and > this in determinism extends to the underlying physics of that hardware.’ > > > Actually I disagree here. The hardware eventually is absolute, as it is a > first person projection on infinitely many computation. We would not have > found Quantum Mechanics, we could rightly suspect mechanism to be false, or > to be in a malevolent “bostromian” simulation. > > You are right when you say that CT makes impossible for a machine to > determine which universal machine run it, by introspection, but the machine > can know that below its substitution level, the hardware is an emerging > pattern from all computations relative to the actual state. That is why > physics becomes derivable from arithmetic or from any Turing universal > theory. > > Doesn't the ability to determine whether you are supported by arithmetical computations vs. a simulation one hinge on the capacity to make (and remember the result of) measurements of what exists below one's substitution level? What is the meaning of "below substitution level" for a mind completely disconnected from its environment, like Deep-Blue engaged in repeated games of self-play? Is it possible to know what it is like only to be one very specific computation (thereby being eternally stuck there) or is there always the possibility of waking up out of it like a bad dream? 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhScFjonoU_8QBux%3DsQsVa11OLmb_SZeGhTMXPSR-%3D7Sw%40mail.gmail.com.
