On 8/24/2019 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:51 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 2:16 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:01 PM Russell Standish
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 07:34:26PM -0700, 'Brent
Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>
> On 8/24/2019 6:31 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > That's not an apriori reason. Assuming you're in
principle OK with the
> > concept of a brain in a vat (which is a
disembodied mind), then the
> > you too do not have an apriori reason for the
existence of physical
> > things.
> >
> >
>
> I don't see that a brain in a vat counts as a
disembodied mind. Do you mean
> a brain that has no environment to perceive or act
on? I would deny that
> such an isolated brain instantiates a mind. On the
other hand, if the brain
> has sensors and actuators operating, say a Mars
Rover, then it isn't
> disembodied.
>
> Brent
>
Yes - I know your argument. In the BIV scenario, the
environment could
be simulated. Basically Descartes' evil daemon (malin
genie)
scenario. Nothing about the observed physics (bodies
and whatnot)
exists in any fundamental sense.
Presumably the vat is a physical object that provides
nutrients, power, etc to the BIV. That does not count as
disembodied in my book.
The mind is a pattern distinct from any of it's physical
incarnations.
That does not imply that it can exist without some form of
physical realization.
While I agree any mind requires an
instantiation/incarnation/realization, before we can continue I think
we need to clarify what is meant by "physical".
For example, do you think there is any important difference between a
mathematical structure that is isomorphic to a physical universe and
that physical universe?
A mathematical structure is a relation between propositions defined by
some rules of deduction. It is static. It has no "accidental" or as
Bruno would say "geographic" features. Two mathematical structures can
be isomorphic precisely because of this. It is impossible that a
mathematical and a physical structure be isomorophic. That is just a
loose way of talking that assumes we will abstract away enough of the
physical structure so that the remainder can be represented
mathematically and then that can be isomorphic to some other
mathematical structure.
Brent
Assuming both exist, is one capable of building conscious minds while
the other is not? If one cannot, what do you think it is that
"physicalness" adds which is not present in that mathematical
structure which enables the physical one to hold conscious minds?
Either way (with or without zombies in the mathematical structure)
would you agree that the isomorphically identical mathematical
structure would contain humans, human civilization, philosophers,
books about consciousness, arguments about qualia, and all the other
phenomena we see in the physical universe?
Brains have mass, minds do not.
Brains have definite locations, minds do not.
Can you prove that?
A mind can exist in multiple locations if its state is duplicate (just
as a Moby Dick exists in many locations while a single book can exist
only in one location).
Minds can exist in multiple locations at once, brains cannot.
Can you prove that? That is, show me a mind that is in several
locations at once.
It is a consequence of:
- the standard cosmological model (infinite, homogenous, isotropic
universe)
- eternal inflation
- quantum mechanics without collapse
So unless all of those theories are false, they are a natural consequence.
The basic idea is any finite volume of finite energy contains only a
finite amount of information. By the pigeon hole principle, there are
only so many ways matter and energy can be organized in a finite
volume. With infinite space you inevitably will find repetitions of
patterns (from the size of skulls to the size of planets and Hubble
volumes). These repetitions, however, will be very far away, so I
cannot point out one to you. This paper estimates your nearest
doppelganger might be 10^10^28 meters away:
https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
Of course if there is no collapse then QM also implies duplications of
brains. I obtained the following 48 bits from a quantum random number
generator <https://qrng.anu.edu.au/RainBin.php>:
000111100110110110001101011110111010011101101010
Since you have looked at them, there are 2^48 new copies of your brain.
No, there are 2^48 orthogonal projections in the infinite dimensional
Hilbert space of the universe.
But here, your mind has also differentiated, as these bits entered
your conscious awareness. If instead I kept the numbers to myself,
and did not tell you about them, only that I saw a 48-bit number, then
I would have created many new physically distinct brain states without
creating new mind states (for you).
Minds can travel from one physical universe to another, or to
locations beyond the cosmological horizon receding at speeds
greater than c, brains cannot.
Is this supposed to mean anything other than that we can think
about such things? Beside, what evidence do you have for the
existence of other physical universes to which we can travel, even
in thought?
You seem to assume a lot of mythology here.
No mythology involved here.
Let's say we simulate another physical universe with completely
different physical laws. And we simulate it in sufficient detail that
we can witness life evolve in that universe, and eventually evolve
brains and consciousness. We can then "abduct" one of those beings
into our universe by copying its information into our own, we might
even equip it with a robotic body so that we can interact with that
alien in our own universe. This being was able to travel from one
universe to another, though its physical brain are forever stuck in
the physical universe where it evolved.
No. You assumed it was created within our universe. Otherwise we could
not "abduct" it. A universe is by definition closed. What you're
trying to use is that idea that a universe can be completely simulated.
But to really be complete it must be closed...and in that case there is
no difference between a "simulated" and a "real" universe. It is just
magical thinking to say that the universe isn't real because it's
possible that it's a simulation within some other universe IF it is
actually closed. It is muddled thinking to postulate a simulated
universe and then think of going in and out of it, of having it
supported by computers in another universe. Those are psuedo-universes
and that's why assuming them lead to silly speculations. Of course
it's/possible/ we live in a psuedo-universe, but then we should look for
empirical evidence it is not closed and that we can interact with the
"real" universe.
Brent
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj3FHmPWu8_ObMUWra_02iGO2tcgg2g%2BtYTOnSShBSjAQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj3FHmPWu8_ObMUWra_02iGO2tcgg2g%2BtYTOnSShBSjAQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/10434564-b6cf-dec7-a603-e0ff449ec5b5%40verizon.net.
