On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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]> 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. > > > c.f. Pontius Pilate > > > It is static. >> > > All change is relative. > > > There is no change in a mathematical structure. > Nor in physics. C.f. Einstein. > > > > > 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. > That's what I said. > > > > > It is impossible that a mathematical and a physical structure be >> isomorophic. >> > > Why? > > > Because physical things have "accidental" attributes and relations. > Define accidental. I'm not sure you can define it in such a way that a physical object could have it while a mathematical object could not. > > > > > 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. > Okay great. That's where I was hoping to get to. That there's no difference that could be a difference. > > > "Physical" is the name for the universe we live in. One we can perceive > and interact with and subjectively agree on. > Yes. This is the point I was trying to make with saying abstract and concrete were observer relative. Jason > > > > >> 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-u1RjDn7fsyMypNybU3NRw2sTabdcpX > LUuXA%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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/391e77ce-54a1-67f0-609f-4fb09613dd34%40verizon.net?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/CA%2BBCJUjBEs3Y%3DSZVbpe%2Bx6bVsS4U%2BMNVCV5NG2fZVV2-jdC8bg%40mail.gmail.com.
