> On 25 Aug 2019, at 19:38, '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] >> <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.
That is a theory. The mathematical structure is the model, or semantic, of the theory. > It is static. It has no "accidental" or as Bruno would say "geographic" > features. In general that is relative. The group (Z, 0, +) is a commutative model of the theory of group, but you can make a general theory of the commutative groups. Then (Q_0, 1, *) is another model of that theory. But concerning physics, the idea is that the physical laws have to be the same for all machine, and the rest will be geographical particularisation. > 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. That depends on the metaphysical theory. Before we have evidences for something, it is better to avoid taking it for granted? With Digital Mechanism, there is no choice: the physical reality is given by the laws of the observable by universal numbers. Adding an ontology to the numbers requires a non mechanist theory of mind. Bruno > > 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 >> <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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/10434564-b6cf-dec7-a603-e0ff449ec5b5%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/4714F3BA-8E61-4338-BC9D-D2CAA1CE928F%40ulb.ac.be.
