From: Bruno Marchal
All we need to *reason* for getting consequence of comp is that such
substitution is *in principle* possible. Theoreticians does that, in many
fields. I insist that the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) is based on
the notion of generalized brain: you could say that your
CW writes:
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Do you believe that IF you vanished at point A and a copy of you created at
point B who was physically and mentally similar to the original to the same
extent as if you had walked from A to B you would have survived? If you
answer no then you are
Hi David (Nyman),
Let me sum up and conclude (and then we can discuss more details and
technical stuff elsewhere for example on the everything-list).
I think we agree on the importance of the first person points of view.
I think David Deutsch and Everett would agree there.
Now, and this is a
Le 04-août-06, à 08:03, W. C. a écrit :
From: Bruno Marchal
All we need to *reason* for getting consequence of comp is that such
substitution is *in principle* possible. Theoreticians does that, in
many
fields. I insist that the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) is
based on
the
Le 10-juil.-06, à 04:58, George Levy a écrit :
Stephen Paul King wrote:
little discussion has
been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as
primary or
fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen?
Hi Stephen
Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a
I think if you stack all possible recordings together in the way you
suggest, connected in such as way as to be indistinguishable from a
computation occuring with all its counterfactuals in the Multiverse,
then what you have is a computation.
Cheers
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 02:55:18PM +1000,
Hi Bruno
I think before commenting on the axioms you present I would want to
place them within something more inclusive along the lines of:
1) FP1 = context = 'subjectivity'
2) TP = content = 'objectivity'
3) FP2 = FP1 + TP
Then:
4) If p is knowable then p is TP in context of FP1
5) If k is
From: Bruno Marchal
Are you sure that this is possible, even just in principle? Actually, just
to show me that it could be possible in principle you have to give me your
fundamental assumptions. Actually it looks like you are assuming the
following:
a) there is a physical universe (well, with
To All:
I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and
write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask:
is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to
work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight.
What
Dear Stathis,
you touched a 'conscious/' nerve in me.
Let me concentrate on your text and interleave my remarks and questions.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom Caylor everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:37 PM
Hi Bruno
I think before commenting on the axioms you present I would want to
place them within something more inclusive along the following lines:
('FP1' and 'FP2' are used in the senses I have previously given, with
'TP' as 'third person' in the sense of any schema whatsoever for
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that if you want to
make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor me can
really define it, you will need at least to axiomatize it in some way.
Here is my question. Do you agree that a first person is a knower, and
in that case, are you willing
Hi Bruno
I think before commenting on the axioms you present I would want to
place them within something more inclusive along the following lines:
('FP1' and 'FP2' are used in the senses I have previously given, with
'TP' as 'third person' in the sense of any schema whatsoever for
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be
a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat
simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum
computer in action.
Norman Samish
~
- Original
14 matches
Mail list logo
