Le 09-août-06, à 12:46, 1Z a écrit :
Timeless universe, universes where everything that can exist
does exist, are not well founded empirically.
So we should understand that you would criticize any notion, sometimes
brought by physicists, of block-universe. Time would be a primitive?
What
Le 09-août-06, à 18:08, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
Platonia has not been instantiated. Our universe has.
The problem with such a conception is that it seems to need a form of
dualism between Plato Heaven and terrestrial realities.
With the comp hyp, all there is is (arithmetical)
Le 09-août-06, à 18:12, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Of course I have a problem with the word universe and especially
with
the expression being inside a universe. The reason is that I think
comp forces us to accept we are supported by an infinity of
computations and that
Hi Norman,
It has been said that dreams provide the royal (and oldest) path to metaphysics and doubt. What you are saying here is behind the key of the 6th steps of the UDA argument. Although nowadays video games + some amount of imagination can be a good substitute for dream.
Now I am not sure
Le 09-août-06, à 21:00, Norman Samish wrote (to Colin):
Thank you, Colin Hales. I believe your remarks apply to any theory.
Theories are descriptions of what we think reality may be - they are
not reality.
You cannot be sure of that either. Perhaps some theory *can* be exact,
and then
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting SP):
...a controlled
experiment in which measure can be turned up and down leaving
everything else
the same, such as having an AI running on several computers in
perfect
lockstep.
I think that the idea that a lower measure OM will appear more
Le 10-août-06, à 14:16, Stathis Papaioannou wrote :
Bruno: I am not sure I understand. All real number exist, for
example, and it
is the reason why we can put a measure on it. All computations exist
(this is equivalent with arithmetical realism) yet some are or at
least
could be
Bruno,
I liked what George Levy wrote (19 July 2006):
As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything
using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP
which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.
A bit lesser the continuation:
I came up
Colin Hales wrote:
Perhaps the 3rd person is best called 'virtual'. It's role is one for
'as-if' it existed.
Yes, that's a reasonable suggestion. Then 3rd person might be reserved
for the type of observation in George's examples. The 'shareable
knowledge base' is then an aspect of 'personal
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Misc responses to 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin Hales wrote:
David Nyman:
snip
An _abstract_ computation/model X implemented symbolically on a of
Sort of...but I think the word 'hardware' is loaded with assumption.
I'd
say
that universe literally is a
Norman Samish wrote:
QM says nothing about what the universe is actually constructed of. It is
not constructed of quantum mechanics! It is constructed of something that
behaves quantum mechanically.
Thank you, Colin Hales. I believe your remarks apply to any theory.
Theories are
scerir wrote:
Has the 'axiom of choice' (I know very little about it, only that famous
paradox)
something to do, from some epistemic point of view, with the quantum
'collapse/reduction/projection'?
No.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem with such a conception is that it seems to need a form of
dualism between Plato Heaven and terrestrial realities.
With the comp hyp, all there is is (arithmetical) Platonia.
Instanciation is relative and appears from inside.
With the materialist hypothesis
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-août-06, à 12:46, 1Z a écrit :
Timeless universe, universes where everything that can exist
does exist, are not well founded empirically.
So we should understand that you would criticize any notion, sometimes
brought by physicists, of block-universe.
Yes, I
Norman,
my response to the subject is: NO. I
learned a good _expression_ here (on this list) I think from Tom(?): "perception
of reality".
"I can onlyassume that reality ishow things appear to me
- and I might be wrong." (Wise way to save one's sanity.)
Upon (cultural?) historical
- Original Message -
From: David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: The moral dimension of simulation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we simulate what we are living in according to
Serafino,
I regret that I am unable to answer your
question - perhaps another list member will volunteer his opinion.
Norman
~
- Original Message -
From: "scerir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:08 PM
Subject:
1Z:
Why shouldn't it just *be* time ?
A structure evolves from state to state in a regular way. The fact that an
observer built of that structure inside that structure can formulate
mathematical descriptions with a t in them that correlate well with what
is observed does not mean that there is
Bruno Marchal
Le 09-août-06, à 18:08, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
Platonia has not been instantiated. Our universe has.
The problem with such a conception is that it seems to need a form of
dualism between Plato Heaven and terrestrial realities.
With the comp hyp, all there is is
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-août-06, à 12:46, 1Z a écrit :
Timeless universe, universes where everything that can exist
does exist, are not well founded empirically.
So we should understand that you would criticize any notion, sometimes
brought by physicists, of block-universe.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno, I spent some (!) time on speculating on 'timelessness' - Let me tell
up front: I did not solve it.
Hi John
For example, we can conceive of a consciousness generated by a computer
operating in a time share mode where the time share occur every
thousand
1Z wrote:
Not only is it not necessary to
treat such a 1st person as ontologically primative, it is
hardly even coherent , since such a 1st person is clearly complex.
I think I see where the confusion lies. My definitions rely on there
being a unique ontologogical 'substance' because of my
Brent Meeker:
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-août-06, à 12:46, 1Z a écrit :
Timeless universe, universes where everything that can exist
does exist, are not well founded empirically.
So we should understand that you would criticize any notion, sometimes
brought by
23 matches
Mail list logo
