This fits in well: the philosopher of consciousness and mathematician,
David Chalmers, coined the phrase:
Experience is information from the inside; Physics is information from
the outside.
Which I quite like. It's in his book The Conscious Mind: towards a
fundamental theory which is heavy going,
Hi Stephen,
Le 17-mai-05, à 22:39, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
There is still one question that needs to be answered: what is it
that gives rise to the differentiation necessary for one description
to bruise (or cause any kind of change) in another description if
we disallow for some thing
Stathis writes
I was using the term information loosely, to include what is commonly
termed qualia, subjective experience etc. I agree that if a physical system
is fully specified, then that is all you need in order to duplicate or
emulate the system. The new system will do everything the
Well, ...
Le 18-mai-05, à 08:53, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
I think you assume at the start a physical world. I don't need that
hypothesis.
I should have said: I can't use that hypothesis, because the physical
world is what I would like to explain.
(Let us not exaggerate the partial success I got)
Hi, I'm Paddy Leahy. I'm an astrophysicist and observational cosmologist
with a long-standing interest in the foundations of QM.
==
Dr J. P. Leahy, University of Manchester,
Jodrell Bank Observatory, School of Physics Astronomy,
Macclesfield,
Quentin Anciaux,
Thanks for the explanation. Unlike much that is said here, I am able to
understand what you mean. But it's not satisfying, and the core mystery
remains. Even if Pearce is correct and everything in the multiverse
self-cancels and adds up to zero, so what? That is not an
I've recently been reading the archive of this group with great interest
and noted a lot of interesting ideas. I'd like to kick off my contribution
to the group with a response to a comment made in numerous posts that a
single observer-moment can have multiple pasts, including macroscopically
Le Mercredi 18 Mai 2005 17:57, Patrick Leahy a écrit :
SNIP
Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from an
information-theoretic point of view, i.e. by identifying all
observer-moments in the multiverse which are equivalent as perceived by
the observer; in which case the
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Mercredi 18 Mai 2005 17:57, Patrick Leahy a écrit :
SNIP
Of course, many of you (maybe all) may be defining pasts from an
information-theoretic point of view, i.e. by identifying all
observer-moments in the multiverse which are equivalent as perceived
Lee:
how would you relate to my generalization of the (non Shannon) information
concept:
Acknowledged difference
where the acknowledgor is not specified nor is the nature of the difference
?
(just 'deifferenc' is no information, unless absorbed into a pool of
organized data,
In AI we consider (certain) qualia (characteristics) of the mind to get
simulated by the machine, in first range those ones that are relevant to the
activities we are interested in, but really: a choice of only those we know
about at all in the model we have of human mentality. There is always
Patrick Leahy writes:
I've recently been reading the archive of this group with great interest
and noted a lot of interesting ideas. I'd like to kick off my contribution
to the group with a response to a comment made in numerous posts that a
single observer-moment can have multiple pasts,
Lee writes:
Jonathan: Bruno's claim is a straightforward consequence of Strong AI;
that a
simulated mind would behave in an identical way to a real one, and
would experience the same qualia. There's no special interface
required here; the simulated mind and the simulated billiard
ball are
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Hal Finney wrote:
Does anybody believe that this is consistent with the many-worlds
interpretation of QM?
First, welcome to the list.
Thanks!
SNIP
However, particularly as we look to larger ensembles than just the MWI,
it becomes attractive to define observers and
Dear Saibal:
Could you explain the paradox you've created by saying, "In the film Nash was closelyacquainted to persons that *didn't realy exist*." and "One could argue that the persons that Nash was seeing in fact did exist *(inour universe)*, precisely because Nash's brain was simulating them."
Alternatively, it is the recognition that Nothing and Everything are
mathematically the same object (This is a little more subtle that
Pearce's summing to zero, but it is essentially the same
argument). Now either Nothing exists, or something exists. Since Nothing and
Everything exhaust the
Pulling up the door you're standing on is known in the computer
industry as bootstrapping, which comes from the expression to pull
yourself up by your bootstraps.
Of course, over time, this has been shortened to boot, as in
booting your computer.
Initially, to boot a computer, one had to enter a
Hi Patrick,
Let me also welcome you to the list.
I agree with Hal that there are several schools of thoughts regarding
many pasts. I believe that a crucial ingredient in accepting the many
past concept is the concept of indiscernibles by Leibniz. If two
objects are indiscernible then they are
18 matches
Mail list logo
