On 8/25/2019 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 12:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <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.
This confuses truth with proof.
c.f. Pontius Pilate
It is static.
All change is relative.
There is no change in a mathematical structure.
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.
Don't you notice that "fundamentally" is a weasel word, signally that
your sentence is strickly false. A Leibniz noted, if two things are the
same then they are only one thing.
It is impossible that a mathematical and a physical structure be
isomorophic.
Why?
Because physical things have "accidental" attributes and relations.
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?
You just don't get it. If your "mathematical universe" is the same as
the physical universe then it's physical too. "Physical" is the name
for the universe we live in. One we can perceive and interact with and
subjectively agree on.
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhxzdmL5n-u1RjDn7fsyMypNybU3NRw2sTabdcpXLUuXA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhxzdmL5n-u1RjDn7fsyMypNybU3NRw2sTabdcpXLUuXA%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/391e77ce-54a1-67f0-609f-4fb09613dd34%40verizon.net.
