Re:

2008-02-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 20-févr.-08, à 17:15, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :




 -Ursprungligt meddelande-
 Fr=E5n: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F=F6r Bruno Marchal
 Skickat: den 20 februari 2008 15:21
 Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 =C4mne: Re: UDA paper


 It arises from the fact
 that my classical state is duplicable...


 And of course your quantumstate is not...

 So your argument that the duplication can be said to be on any level,


Perhaps. This is ambiguous. The comp hyp *assumes* that there is a 
level of description of me such that I survive (= I experience no 
change) when my body (= the thing on which my consciousness 
supervenes on) is piece by piece substituted at that level.



 including a whole universe if need be,


... just In the (not plausible but logically conceivable) case my 
body  (see above) *is* the whole physical universe. In *that* case, 
by definition, the comp hyp asks the whole physical universe to be 
turing-emulable. This is akin to a form of cosmic solipsism.
If this is true Schmidhuber and constructive physicists would be 
(almost trivially) right. But, they would still be strategically wrong 
by *assuming*  this at the start, wrong with respect to the mind-body 
problem (or with respect to the problem of the relation between first 
and third person discourses). The UD Argument is supposed to show that 
the comp hypothesis forces us to derive the physics from a 
probability  bearing on the machine's personal (hopefully plural 
first person) comp histories, if the UD A is correct.



 is not an airproof argument?


What argument?  I think you are only discussing the meaning of the 
starting assumption here. Have you grasp the whole 8-steps argument? If 
I'm wrong or unclear just tell me where and let us discuss where the 
precise problems are. Please keep in mind that I am open to the idea 
that the physics extracted from comp is incompatible with the empirical 
physics making comp not sustain by empirical evidences.
Perhaps you could also tell me what is your opinion on Everett or 
Deutsch. People who dislikes Everett's work could hardly appreciate 
mine.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



assumptions

2008-02-21 Thread Lennart Nilsson


I think you are only discussing the meaning of the 
starting assumption here. Have you grasp the whole 8-steps argument? If 
I'm wrong or unclear just tell me where and let us discuss where the 
precise problems are. Please keep in mind that I am open to the idea 
that the physics extracted from comp is incompatible with the empirical 
physics making comp not sustain by empirical evidences.
Perhaps you could also tell me what is your opinion on Everett or 
Deutsch. People who dislikes Everett's work could hardly appreciate 
mine.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


Oh, I am very much proEverett and proDeutsch and, I might add proStandish
(having translated his book Theory of Nothing into swedish). And you are
right of course, it was your assumptions I questioned...

LN


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---