Picking up a thread from a little while ago:
Jonathan Colvin: That's a good question. I can think of a chess position
that is
a-priori illegal. But our macroscopic world is so complex it is far
from obvious what is allowed and what is forbidden.
Jesse Mazer: So what if some chess position is
Le 09-mai-05, à 00:13, Lee Corbin wrote (FOR list)
Bruno writes
Le 07-mai-05, à 09:33, Bill Taylor a écrit :
COMP has three parts:
...
3) The assumption, in cognitive science, that there is
a level of description of my parts (whatever I
consider myself to be) such that I would not be
Le 09-mai-05, à 01:38, Russell Standish a écrit :
The simplest description can be found in Max Tegamark's paper Is an
Ensemble theory the ultimate TOE?. He uses the term frog
perspective for 1st person, and bird perspective for 3rd person.
I agree more or less. Tegmark, like many physicists forget
Dear aet.radal ssg,
I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic patients, which
is not that they are clear thinkers, but that they are conscious despite a
disability which impairs their perception of time. Your post raises an
interesting question in that you seem to assume that
Dear Stathis,
This was an interesting post. You're right in that, until quite
recently, we've understood the world only as well as we've needed to, in
order to survive. But if you believe, as some people on this list do, that
instantaneous 'observer moments' are the only fundamentally real
Dear Stathis,
I would like to thank you for pointing this out, even thought it should
be obvious to anyone that has any thoughts about consciousness. Any model
that we propose must consider a very wide range of consciousness, including
the insanities, and maybe, just maybe, it might make
Jonathan Colvin writes:
Pondering on this, it raises an interesting question. Can we differentiate
between worlds that are (or appear to be) rule-based, and those that are
purely random?
The usual approach is that a system which is algorithmically compressible
is defined as random. A
Stephen, you seem to have a clear idea
about YOUR meaning of "consciousness". The discussion skewed pretty
much into "human consciousness", which restricts a general idea of it. I wonder
if your "Any modelthat we propose" refers to models of Ccness, or the
'bearer' of such? I couldn't agree
I think you meant algorithmically *in*compressible.
The relevance was, I was thinking that those universes where we become
immortal under MWI are not the conventional rule-based universes such as we
appear to live in, but a different class of stochastic random ones (which
require very unlikely
Dear John,
Thank you for an excellent statement of the
obvious. ;-) All I am trying to do is to make some modicum of sense of this
strange symptom that I have, the ability to perceive myself in the universe.
Iexpect that myexplanations of what consciousness could be should be
applicable
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:02:18PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Dear aet.radal ssg,
I think you missed my point about the amnesic and psychotic patients, which
is not that they are clear thinkers, but that they are conscious despite a
disability which impairs their perception of time.
I don't know why you think QTI experienced worlds will be random. They
will still be law abiding, but the laws will gradually get more
complex, with more exceptions to the rule as time goes on.
Cheers
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:09:26PM -0700, Jonathan Colvin wrote:
I think you meant
Did you mean to say a system *not* algorithmically compressible is defined
as random?
--Stathis Papaioannou
Jonathan Colvin writes:
Pondering on this, it raises an interesting question. Can we
differentiate
between worlds that are (or appear to be) rule-based, and those that are
purely
-Original Message-
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 8:12 PM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness
Stephen Paul King writes:
I think that your
The usual approach is that a system which is algorithmically
compressible is defined as random. A rule-based universe has
a short program that determines its evolution, or creates its
state. A random universe has no program much smaller than
itself which can encode its information.
Hal
The usual approach is that a system which is algorithmically
compressible is defined as random. A rule-based universe has a short
program that determines its evolution, or creates its state.
A random
universe has no program much smaller than itself which can encode its
information.
Hal
Russell,
To be fair, I should elaborate on my earlier post about amnesics and
psychotics. If I consider the actual cases I have seen, arguably they do
have *some* sense of the passage of time. Taking the first example, people
with severe Korsakoff Syndrome (due to chronic alcohol abuse) appear
While it is likely that some version of you will end up in a hellishly
random universe as a result of QTI, you probably won't stay there very long,
since if your particular brain pattern arose randomly, it will probably
become disrupted randomly as well. Failing that, you can always kill
Jonathan Colvin writes:
That's putting it mildly. I was thinking that it is more likely that a
universe tunnels out of a black hole that just randomly happens to contain
your precise brain state at that moment, and for all of future eternity. But
the majority of these random universes will be
If the multiverse is truly infinite in space-time, then all possible
universes must eventually appear in it, including an infinite number with
all 10^80 particles in it identical to those in our universe.
Norman Samish
~
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another way to think of it is that all bit strings
exist, timelessly; and some of them implicitly specify computer programs;
and some of those computer programs would create universes with observers
just like us in them. You don't necessarily need the
Norman Samish writes:
If the multiverse is truly infinite in space-time, then all possible
universes must eventually appear in it, including an infinite number with
all 10^80 particles in it identical to those in our universe.
Yes, Tegmark calls this the Level I concept of a multiverse.
John Collins writes
Dear Stathis,
This was an interesting post. You're right in that, until quite
recently, we've understood the world only as well as we've needed to, in
order to survive. But if you believe, as some people on this list do, that
instantaneous 'observer moments' are the
Brent Meeker writes:
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I think it is enough that I have thought of the concept! Or more
accurately, I think it is enough that the concept is thinkable-of.
Why bother with the computer at all. Since you're just conceptualizing the
computer (it
24 matches
Mail list logo
