RE: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Russell Standish writes: If the same QM state is associated with different observer moments, you must be talking about some non-functionalist approach to consciousness. The QM state, by definition, contains all information that can be extracted from observation. Functionalism explicitly

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-14 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 14, 5:32 am, Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-14 Thread marc . geddes
Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 07:03:18AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also see my reply to Russell below: Russell Standish The Multiverse is defined as the set of consistent histories described by the Schroedinger equation. I make the identification that a

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-14 Thread Russell Standish
I don't quite follow your argument. OMs are not computations. Whatever they are under computationalism, they must be defined by a set of information, a particular meaning to a particular observer. Quantum states have this property. For observables that the state is an eigenvalue of, the state

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-14 Thread marc . geddes
Russell Standish wrote: I don't quite follow your argument. OMs are not computations. Whatever they are under computationalism, they must be defined by a set of information, a particular meaning to a particular observer. Quantum states have this property. For observables that the state is

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:37:10AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barbour argues the same way you do. But he does concede that his argument is not yet proven. The trouble is that in the case of, for instance, the electron, in the example you give, there is still an environment external

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:21:52AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Standish wrote: I don't quite follow your argument. OMs are not computations. Whatever they are under computationalism, they must be defined by a set of information, a particular meaning to a particular

*Off topic* Puzzle challenge for $US 2 million

2006-10-14 Thread marc . geddes
Because I'm fascinated by high-complexity type puzzle contests (i.e puzzles lasting 6 months or more) as a possible way to test really high IQ's. It's also indirectly relevent to 'theories of everything' since 'the universe' is one giant puzzle ;) The Challenge 'Secret's of the Alchemist Dar'