On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 12:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 8/24/2019 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 12:51 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 2:16 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, August 24, 2019, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:01 PM Russell Standish <[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. > This confuses truth with proof. It is static. > All change is relative. It has no "accidental" or as Bruno would say "geographic" features. Two > mathematical structures can be isomorphic precisely because of this. > This shows only that there's often many ways of talking about what is fundamentally the same thing. It is impossible that a mathematical and a physical structure be > isomorophic. > Why? 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. > Why do you doubt the possibility of this? How do you know what you believe to be the physical universe isn't already mathematical? > 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. > And each contains what in our conventional language we would call a brain. > 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. > I assumed there is the other physical universe out there. Perhaps it is one of the other bubble universe possibilities permitted under eternal inflation. Our universe just replicated the mind in from that universe. A universe is by definition closed. > Simulation is a way of exploring other universes, visiting them and bringing back information from them. Computer's in a sense are telescopes that can peer into other realities. 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. > That's true. Simulation can create reality. 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. > I'm not saying it isn't real because it can be simulated, I was only saying minds can travel from one universe to another. 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. > The full simulation of the other universe isn't necessary to abduct a mind, but it helps explain the plausibility of the abduction. 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%2BBCJUhxzdmL5n-u1RjDn7fsyMypNybU3NRw2sTabdcpXLUuXA%40mail.gmail.com.
