Re: Consciousness is information?
On 29 May 2009, at 18:53, Kelly Harmon wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> >> What do you thing is the more probable events that you will live >> which >> one is the more probable? What is your most rational choice among > > So if nothing is riding on the outcome of my choice, then it seems > rational to choose the option that will make me right in the most > futures, which is option 6, white noise. What a relief ... > If there's one world for > each unique pattern of pixels, It is more or less explicit in the ideal protocol of the experience. > then most of those worlds will be > "white noise" worlds, and making the choice that makes me right in the > most worlds seems as rational as anything else. Perfect. > > > Though, if there is something significant riding on whether I choose > correctly or not, then I have to decide what is most important to me: > minimizing my suffering in the worlds where I'm wrong, or maximizing > my gains in the worlds where I'm right. > > If there isn't significant suffering likely in the losing worlds, then > I will be much more likely to base my decision on the observed or > calculated probabilities, as Papineau suggests. OK. It is not incompatible. > > > BUT, if there is significant suffering likely in the worlds where I > lose, I might very well focus making a choice that will minimize that > suffering. In which case I will generally not base much of my > decision on the "probabilities", since it is my view that all outcomes > occur. ? > > > However, going a little further, this assumes that I only make one > bet. As I mentioned before, I think that I will make all possible > bets. Before the multiplication? I don't see how you could, here and now, decide to do 2^(16180*1*60*90*24) bets. I am not asking your quantum or comp counterparts. The question is asked to *the* Kelly to which I send this post. > So, even if I make the "safe" suffering-minimizing bet in this > branch, I know that in a closely related branch I will make the risky > "gain-maximizing" bet and say to hell with the Kellys in the losing > worlds. You are hard with yourself, I mean with your selves ... > > > So I know that even if I make the safe bet, there's another Kelly two > worlds over making the risky bet, which will result in a Kelly > suffering the consequences of losing over there anyway. So maybe I'll > say, "screw it", and make the risky bet myself. You could as well put your hand in the fire directly. > > > Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Every Kelly in every situation with > every history is actualized. So my subjective feeling that I am > making choices is irrelevant. Every choice is going to get made, so > my "choice" is really just me taking my place in the continuum of > Kellys. First, in the multiplication experience, the question of your choice is not addressed, nor needed. The question is really: what will happen to you. You give the right answer above. > > > >> And I am asking you, here and now, what do you expect the most >> probable experience you will feel tomorrow, when I will do that >> experiment. > > So to speak of expectations is to appeal to my "single world" > intuitions. But we know that intuition isn't a reliable guide, since > there are many aspects of reality that are unintuitive. So I think > the fact that I have an intuitive expectation that things will happen > a certain way, and only that way, is neither here nor there. We can get counter-intuitive results only by starting with our intuition, and we have to succeed in making those basic intuition very solid, if we want to be able to make clear the counter-intuitive consequences. If not, we can't progress at all, and we lose the opportunity to abandon our wrong theories. Common sense is the ONLY tool to go beyond common sense. Have you understand UDA1-6?, because I think most get those steps. I will soon explain in all details UDA-7, which is not entirely obvious. If you take your own philosophy seriously, you don't need UDA8. But it can be useful to convince others, of the necessity of that "philosophy", once we bet on the comp hyp. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
Marty, > Bruno, I feel very much in tune with your definition of science, so > I'll trudge along with Kim as far as the UD allows me to follow the > reasoning. m.a. You are welcome. And why would the UD not allow you to follow the reasoning? All universal number can follow the reasoning, if they want to. As soon as possible, ... but I have to think a bit more. I'm afraid I will have to go through a not so short review of elementary math, and I have already written posts for that, but I did not send them, because I find them too long. I will probably opt for many, but really short posts in the form of questions/easy exercise. We will see. Best, Bruno > > > > > - Original Message - > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 6:59 AM > Subject: Re: Consciousness is information? > > Hi Marty, > > > On 29 May 2009, at 02:32, m.a. wrote: > >> Bruno, >> Thank you for this detailed reply. May I pose one >> follow-up question? Is the universal dovetailer some sort of God/ >> Machine that is mathematical like the rest of creation but separate >> from it and of a higher order of purpose? > > > The universal dovetailer (UD) is a program. A finite piece of code, > which, when executed, generates all programs, in all possible > programming languages, and which also executes all those programs, > by dovetailing on those executions. In that sense the UD is "just" a > program among all programs. When it runs (platonistically or not) it > generates itself, and executes itself, an infinity of times. > > I will explain this in all details to Kim. It is not a trivial > subject, and the more you know about the diagonalization technic, > the more you are amazed that the UD can exist. But its existence is > a consequence of simple axioms defining addition and multiplication > of the natural numbers. Its "universal" character is a consequence > of Church's thesis, which is needed for accepting the generality of > incompleteness and limitation theorems. > > > > >> If so, is there an explanation for its existence that doesn't >> exclude a deity? > > > You can explain the existence of the UD without invoking any deity. > But this does not exclude any (non naïve or literal) deity. > > Then, if you are willing to define deities by "non turing > emulable" (mathematical) subject or objects, like actual infinities, > then, even machines (like us, with comp) cannot NOT invoke deities > when trying to learn some truth about just the numbers and the > machines. We need even a transfinite ladder of deities to grasp more > and more the machine's abilities. > > The opposition between science and religion is a red herring. > Science is opposed only to authoritative arguments. The confusion > comes from the fact that many religions, including some form of > atheism, are based on authoritative arguments, apparently as a > consequence of their temporal institutionalization. > > But real, ideal perhaps, science leads only to modesty and respect, > especially in regard with fundamental question. > > Science cannot have definite answers on fundamental questions, it > can only enlarge the awe, the astonishment. > Science cannot kill the mystery, but it can clean it better and > better from the superstitions and the fake mysteries, generally > brought by the fear sellers and the egocentric manipulators. > > If you follow the explanation to Kim, there will be a point where > you will understand that science is really what breaks down all > possible form of reductive or reductionist explanation. This can > explain why the pseudo religious authoritarians are used to fight > against science, and against freedom. > > Comp superficially looks like a reductionism, but it is the most > powerful vaccine against reductionism. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe
On 30 May 2009, at 23:08, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: > > Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality > formulated by Christopher Michael Langan? > > http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm > > It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different > than some of what Bruno Marchal says. > > Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan > has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first > paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped. > > But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be > very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion. It is a physicalism in disguise. There is also a confusion between a mathematical object as a tool to represent other object, and the other object. And using set theory in that setting is a curious choice, given that set theory is known to flatten the concepts. It is the reason what mathematician prefer category theory, or specific theories ... I mean sets? Which sets? It is very unclear how the different notions are related. I can appreciate its apparent open mind on religion, but I don't see any effort to solve problems, nor any clarification of problems. Langan seems not to be afraid of being appreciated by those who want to be mystified instead of understanding. But then if you have a link on a real precise theory or results, you can let us know, but my opinion is that it is not really honest, or if it is, then it is presented in a very awkward. To give set a fundamental status is really like saying you should do everything in FORTRAN. Unless you have a good original reason to use sets, but then you should give it. Rereading some parts I am not sure at all he even try to say something, ... pervert the usual meaning of the terms. He makes complex simple ideas and hides somehow its naive view of Plato, making me a bit nervous even on points where I could imagine some sense there ... ... Hmm Pompous and Boring, if you ask my opinion. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
