Re: on formally describable universes and measures
Hi Juergen, I would like to nuance my last Post I send to you. First I see in other posts, written by you, that your computable real numbers are *limit* computable. It still seems to me possible to diagonalize against that, although it is probably less trivial. But I think it isn't really relevant in our present discussion, because the continuum I am talking about appears in the first person discourse of the machines, so it is better to keep discussing the main point, which is the relevance of the first person point of view, with comp, when we are searching for a TOE. You makes me hesitating between pointing to modal logic and self-reference or keeping insisting on the thought experiments. Mmh... I dunno. Bruno
Re: on formally describable universes and measures
Jacques Mallah wrote: Pourquoi hurluberlu? Expliquez-moi ce mot (en anglais), s'il vous plait. (Je ne parle pas francais!) I cannot explain what hurluberlu means, except that it means crackpot. Sort of total fantasy ... I really don't know what you mean by concrete. If you believe there's a UD, you believe there's a UD. If not, stop sounding like you do and tell us in plain anglais what you mean. I am sure the distinction is totally irrelevant. Math is math. In any case, you either believe that it implements the computations, or you believe that it doesn't. If the latter, then it certainly can't be a candidate for any kind of TOE. Math is math, but is physic math? By a concrete UD I was meaning a real actual one, like the one I have implemented on a macintosh SE/30, and which has been running during two weeks in 1990 at Brussels. Of course I postulate here some physical universe as a local decor. Look, to be sure we are using impIementation in the same sense, I quote yourself (from http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/cwia.htm#II3) In turn, a computation is associated with a physical system only if it has been implemented by that system. Implementation is usually taken to mean that there is some direct correspondence between the formal states of that computation, and the states of the physical system, which can be described mathematically. So either you believe there is only math (including computer science and all computations), then implementation is a emerging concept, as are anything linked to physical predicates. Or you believe there exists something physical per se. Then indeed you can defined implementation in a sense relative to that physicalness. In either case you need to define it. And you *know* in either case it is a problem: mine and your's. The third person view is fully capable of describing the entire situation. (Notice that _I_ never use the term 3rd person view; a better term would be actual situation.) Actuality is a first person concept. 3rd person view is everything you can communicate in a scientific manner without taking into account the subjective view of a person. It seems to me that I need to repeat myself a lot here. You are not the only one. It's part of the game. Hey, what's the french word for crap? I bet it would sound much more elegant ... unless the french just stole it. Crap means merde according to my dictionnary. Is it true crap means shit? You know merde, isn't it?, The famous word used by the general Cambrone during the Napoleonian wars ... Bruno
Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
*Phew!*; this afternoon I finally got round to reading the 190-odd messages I have received from this list From: Saibal Mitra Instead of the previously discussed suicide experiments to test variousversions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a different approach. By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to travelto different branches of the multiverse. Suppose you are diagnosed with a rare disease. You don't have complaints yet, but you will diewithin a year. If you could delete the information that you have thisparticular disease (and also the information that information hasbeen deleted), branches in which you don't have the diseasemerge with the branches in which you do have the disease. So withvery high probability you have travelled to a different branch. I don't know whether to be relieved or annoyed that I'm not the only person to think of this ;D. http://pub45.ezboard.com/fwastelandofwondersfrm1.showMessage?topicID=353.topicindex=5 I'm guessing this is quite a common idea? Rats, I thought I was so great I_did_ thinkof the following today, though: If you take this sort of thing one step further, an afterlife is inevitable; there will always be systems - however improbable - where the mind lives on. For instance, you could just be the victim of an hallucination, your mind could be downloaded, you could be miraculously cured, and other _much_ more bizzare ones. Since you won't be around to notice the worlds where you did die, they don't count, and you are effectively immortal. Or at least you will perceive yourself to live on, which is the same thing. When I thought of it, it seemed startlingly original and clever. Looking at the posts I have from this list, I'm beginning to suspect it's neither Anyhow, while this sort of wild thinking iswonderfully pure andcathartic, itnever seems to lead anywhere with testable or useful implications. So far, anyway What's the opinion here on which are more fundamental - minds or universes? I'd say they're both definable and hence exist de facto, and that each implies the other. Well,I'm new here. Is there anything I should know about this list? Apart from the fact that everyone's so terribly educated Feel free to go a bit OT ;). Michael Rosefield, Sheffield, England "I'm a Solipsist, and I must say I'm surprised there aren't more of us." -- letter to Bertrand Russell
Re: need for anthropic reasoning
Hello, I'm new in here. I apologize in advance for any inadvertent transgressions... Second, there is no way of knowing whether you are in a so called real world or in a virtual world. So if I don't care about virtual people, I don't even know whether or not I care about myself. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'd argue, all worlds are just as real, or unreal as you make them. Finding a common context as some mechanism to validate truth seems naive. One can only apply truth to issues in the context to be evaluated. Soon we may have AIs or uploaded human minds (i.e. human minds scanned and then simulated in computers). It seems to me that those who don't care about simulated thoughts would have an advantage in exploiting these beings more effectively. I'm not saying that is a good thing, of course. I enjoyed considering this possibility. It sounds a lot like freedom. My current understanding tells me that there is much more to mind than just logic and reasoning power. The power of the intellect is the ability to transcend the chaos of undisciplined thought and feeling. It's downfall is it's declaration of absolutism, that it stands as the pinnacle of understanding. The problem I find is that the intellect developed in this world, only knows *this world*. Some would argue that there is no other world. I'd argue it's the intellect defining it self in terms of the *apparent* world, and religiously maintaining the faith, less it find it's own demise. A truly powerful mind (imo) is one that quickly adapts to any rules found in any context it operates in. Clinging to one realm and making it the center of the universe sounds a lot like religion to me. You're assuming that the AIs couldn't fight back. With technology improving, they might be exploiting us soon. I do a lot of conceptual work in ai. I find without purpose, an entity is one step closer to conceptual death. An ai knowing enough to know it wants to exploit probably isn't burdened by the chaotic thinking humans are plaqued with. It is more likely ai's achieving this level of cognition and consciousness, will seek to cooperate. They would want to achieve things they would recognize that only humans act as a catalyst for. One scenario is that ai's might have less consciousness than just described, and that they operated in competition, not conscious of what they are actually doing. I think this is possible on a small scale, but would not continue very far. Insects are in effect, small machines without much in the way of consciousness. Aside from the occasional plaque or locust swarm, we don't worry about them too much. Do you think that, 150 years ago, white people who didn't care about blacks had an evolutionary advantage? I also value knowledge as an end in itself, but the problems is how do you know what is true knowledge? If you don't judge knowledge by how effective it is in directing your actions, what do you judge it by, I think this is an issue of consciousness. One may operate with knowledge on a small scale. They find harmony in there lives by keeping things simple. There are those that develop skills in applying vast amount of knowledge to complicated problems. You might ask: which is better? I think it depends on what a person wants out of life. To judge something, I think, requires a contextual awareness. What applies for one might not apply for another. In science, we maintain a rigid form of thinking to in effect, keep from deluding ourselves. It also applies as a language that spans over anyone who would join and uphold the principles of science (scientific method, etc). But again, the validity and applicability of the knowledge gained in this club depends on the context it is applied to. A scientist might say: This drug will improve your life. The farmer or other simple person might say: I don't care. The scientist might see statistics that say: These people are dieing needlessly. The simple person might say: That's life. You might make a limited scientist out of a given simple person, making them see your view point. But have you improved their life? Have you made them see? Or have you just blinded them. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
