Re: Bitstrings, Ontological Status and Time
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:55:39PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: Sure, in fact I first learned of the idea from one of Tegmark's papers, he who is unknowingly one of the founding fathers of this list. Unknowingly? Tegmark was certainly involved in this list in the early days, but I suspect he doesn't bother with it much these days... -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 pgpLvgEMkkGvT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness
Dear Norman, You make a very interesting point (the first point) and I think that we could all agree upon it as it isbut I notice that you used two words that put a sizable dent in the COMP idea: "snapshot" and "precisely represented". It seems that we might all agree that we would be hard pressed to find any evidence at all in a single snapshot on an entity to lead us to believe that it somehow has or had some form of 1st person viewpoint, a "subjective" experience. Even if we were presented with many snapshots, portraits of "moments frozen in time" like so many insects in amber,we would dono better; but we have to deal with the same criticism that eventually brought Skinnerian behaviorism down: models that only access a 3rd person view and disallow for a "person" making the 3rd person view will, when examined critically, fail to offer any explanation of even an illusion of a 1st person viewpoint! And we have not even dealt with the Representable by "string-of-zeroes-and-ones" . Bitstring representability only gives us a means to asks questions like: is it possible to recreate a 3rd person view. Examplesthat such are possible are easy to find, go to your nearest Blockbuster and rent a DVD... But again, unless we include the fact that we each, as individuals, have some 1st person view that somehow can not be known by others without also converging the 1st person viewpoints of all involved, we are missing the obvious. A "representation of X" is not necessarily 3rd person identical to X even though it might be 1st person indistinguishable! About the multiverse being infinite in space-time: You seem to be thinking of space-time as some kind of a priori existing container, like a fish bowl, wherein all universes "exists", using the word "exists" as if it denoted "being there" and not "somewhere else". This is inconsistent with accepted GR and QM in so many ways! GR does not allow us to think off space-time as some passive "fishbowl"! Space-time is something that can be changed - by changing the distributions of momentum-energy - and that the alterable metrics of space-time can change the distributions of momentum-energy - otherwise known as "matter" - stuff that makes up planets, people, amoeba, etc. QM, as interpreted by Everrett et altells us that each eigenstate(?) of a QM system is "separate" from all others, considered as representing entirely separate distributions of matter/momentum-energy, and thus have entirely different and unmixed space-times associated. The word "parallel" as used in MWI should really be "orthogonal" since that is a more accurate description of the relationships that the Many Worlds have with each other. Now, what are we to make of these two statements taken together? I don't know yet. ;-) Stephen - Original Message - From: Norman Samish To: everything-list@eskimo.com Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:14 AM Subject: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness Gentlemen,I think that we all must be "zombies who behave as if they are conscious," in the sense that a snapshot of any of us could, in principle, be precisely represented by a string of zeroes and ones.If it is true that the multiverse is infinite in space-time, is it not true that anything that can exist must exist? If so, then, in infinite space-time, there are no possible universes that do not exist.Norman Samish~~- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:47 PMSubject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on ConsciousnessDear Stephen,COMP is basically a variant of the familiar "Problem of Other Minds", whichis not just philosophical esoterica but something we have to deal with ineveryday life. How do you know that all your friends and family are reallyconscious in the way you are conscious, and not merely zombies who behave as if they are conscious? There isn't any empirical test that can help youdecide the answer to this question conclusively; in the final analysis, youassume that other people have minds as a matter of faith. This troubles meas much as it troubles you, but alas, there is nothing we can do about it.--Stathis Papaioannou
Re: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness - A question
I am a mere layperson who follows your discussions with great interest, so forgive me if I'm about to ask a question whose answer is apparent to all but me. I am very familiar with the "first person" and "third person" concept in everyday life and literature, but I am a little unclear about the specific meaning that it holds in these discussions; I feel like I'm missing something important that is blocking my understanding of how you are applying first and third person to your work in terms of multiverses and MWI. Could someone please direct me to some links that could help me better understand these perspectives as they apply to the discussions. Thank you. Jeanne - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness Dear Norman, You make a very interesting point (the first point) and I think that we could all agree upon it as it isbut I notice that you used two words that put a sizable dent in the COMP idea: "snapshot" and "precisely represented". It seems that we might all agree that we would be hard pressed to find any evidence at all in a single snapshot on an entity to lead us to believe that it somehow has or had some form of 1st person viewpoint, a "subjective" experience. Even if we were presented with many snapshots, portraits of "moments frozen in time" like so many insects in amber,we would dono better; but we have to deal with the same criticism that eventually brought Skinnerian behaviorism down: models that only access a 3rd person view and disallow for a "person" making the 3rd person view will, when examined critically, fail to offer any explanation of even an illusion of a 1st person viewpoint! And we have not even dealt with the Representable by "string-of-zeroes-and-ones" . Bitstring representability only gives us a means to asks questions like: is it possible to recreate a 3rd person view. Examplesthat such are possible are easy to find, go to your nearest Blockbuster and rent a DVD... But again, unless we include the fact that we each, as individuals, have some 1st person view that somehow can not be known by others without also converging the 1st person viewpoints of all involved, we are missing the obvious. A "representation of X" is not necessarily 3rd person identical to X even though it might be 1st person indistinguishable! About the multiverse being infinite in space-time: You seem to be thinking of space-time as some kind of a priori existing container, like a fish bowl, wherein all universes "exists", using the word "exists" as if it denoted "being there" and not "somewhere else". This is inconsistent with accepted GR and QM in so many ways! GR does not allow us to think off space-time as some passive "fishbowl"! Space-time is something that can be changed - by changing the distributions of momentum-energy - and that the alterable metrics of space-time can change the distributions of momentum-energy - otherwise known as "matter" - stuff that makes up planets, people, amoeba, etc. QM, as interpreted by Everrett et altells us that each eigenstate(?) of a QM system is "separate" from all others, considered as representing entirely separate distributions of matter/momentum-energy, and thus have entirely different and unmixed space-times associated. The word "parallel" as used in MWI should really be "orthogonal" since that is a more accurate description of the relationships that the Many Worlds have with each other. Now, what are we to make of these two statements taken together? I don't know yet. ;-) Stephen - Original Message - From: Norman Samish To: everything-list@eskimo.com Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:14 AM Subject: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness Gentlemen,I think that we all must be "zombies who behave as if they are conscious," in the sense that a snapshot of any of us could, in principle, be precisely represented by a string of zeroes and ones.If it is true that the multiverse is infinite in space-time, is it not true that anything that can exist must exist? If so, then, in infinite space-time, there are no possible universes that do not exist.Norman Samish~~- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:47 PMSubject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on ConsciousnessDear Stephen,COMP is basically a variant of the familiar "Problem of Other Minds", whichis not just philosophical esoterica but something we have to deal with
Re: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness - A question
Hi Jeanne: It is much the same thing. More or less the first person is the one standing in Bruno's transporter and the third person is the one operating it. Several years ago I started a FAQ for this list but lacked the necessary time to finish. Hal Ruhl At 02:54 PM 5/8/2005, you wrote: I am a mere layperson who follows your discussions with great interest, so forgive me if I'm about to ask a question whose answer is apparent to all but me. I am very familiar with the first person and third person concept in everyday life and literature, but I am a little unclear about the specific meaning that it holds in these discussions; I feel like I'm missing something important that is blocking my understanding of how you are applying first and third person to your work in terms of multiverses and MWI. Could someone please direct me to some links that could help me better understand these perspectives as they apply to the discussions. Thank you. Jeanne - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness Dear Norman, You make a very interesting point (the first point) and I think that we could all agree upon it as it is but I notice that you used two words that put a sizable dent in the COMP idea: snapshot and precisely represented. It seems that we might all agree that we would be hard pressed to find any evidence at all in a single snapshot on an entity to lead us to believe that it somehow has or had some form of 1st person viewpoint, a subjective experience. Even if we were presented with many snapshots, portraits of moments frozen in time like so many insects in amber, we would do no better; but we have to deal with the same criticism that eventually brought Skinnerian behaviorism down: models that only access a 3rd person view and disallow for a person making the 3rd person view will, when examined critically, fail to offer any explanation of even an illusion of a 1st person viewpoint! And we have not even dealt with the Representable by string-of-zeroes-and-ones . Bitstring representability only gives us a means to asks questions like: is it possible to recreate a 3rd person view. Examples that such are possible are easy to find, go to your nearest Blockbuster and rent a DVD... But again, unless we include the fact that we each, as individuals, have some 1st person view that somehow can not be known by others without also converging the 1st person viewpoints of all involved, we are missing the obvious. A representation of X is not necessarily 3rd person identical to X even though it might be 1st person indistinguishable! About the multiverse being infinite in space-time: You seem to be thinking of space-time as some kind of a priori existing container, like a fish bowl, wherein all universes exists, using the word exists as if it denoted being there and not somewhere else. This is inconsistent with accepted GR and QM in so many ways! GR does not allow us to think off space-time as some passive fishbowl! Space-time is something that can be changed - by changing the distributions of momentum-energy - and that the alterable metrics of space-time can change the distributions of momentum-energy - otherwise known as matter - stuff that makes up planets, people, amoeba, etc. QM, as interpreted by Everrett et al tells us that each eigenstate(?) of a QM system is separate from all others, considered as representing entirely separate distributions of matter/momentum-energy, and thus have entirely different and unmixed space-times associated. The word parallel as used in MWI should really be orthogonal since that is a more accurate description of the relationships that the Many Worlds have with each other. Now, what are we to make of these two statements taken together? I don't know yet. ;-) Stephen - Original Message - From: Norman Samish To: everything-list@eskimo.com Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:14 AM Subject: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness Gentlemen, I think that we all must be zombies who behave as if they are conscious, in the sense that a snapshot of any of us could, in principle, be precisely represented by a string of zeroes and ones. If it is true that the multiverse is infinite in space-time, is it not true that anything that can exist must exist? If so, then, in infinite space-time, there are no possible universes that do not exist. Norman Samish ~~ - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:47 PM Subject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness Dear Stephen, COMP is basically a variant of the familiar Problem of Other Minds, which is not just philosophical esoterica but something we have to deal with in everyday life. How
The Sims of Platonia
Greetings to Wei Dai and many old friends. I'll post a JOIN letter soon. Meanwhile---as is no doubt usual on the Everything list ---much ado is being made of much ado! :-) CMR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote I wonder if Davies is not on to something when he posits that strong emergent phenomena that congeal at various levels of complexity - like consciousness? - may be inexplicable via existing physical laws.; Well, it's of course always *possible* that what we see cannot really be explained by current knowledge. Even Galileo must have wondered if yet further laws were really governing his falling objects, laws beyond d = (1/2)t^2 and g = at. (He would have been right to wonder, of course, since in 1905 and 1915 we learned that there was a bit more to it.) But I would have had to side with a believer at the time: You've done it, Galileo! So far as we can tell, you have nailed it, to the greatest extent that we can measure it! Yes, I too would have wondered, but not for long: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I'd say. this because, like Wolfram's strong digitalist pseudo-random generators, such phenomena are effectively algorithmically incompressible given time and resource constraints. Still nothing, though, that says quantum mechanics and GR aren't perfect in their respective arenas? (Not, of course, that the reconciliation isn't a big problem itself.) Davies cites Lloyd's softer digitalism in his estimate of the Landauer-Lloyd limit on the computational capacity of this universe given light's speed limit and concludes that, although such phenomena may not be purely random, there's not enough functionally available computing capacity exploitable by Laplace's demon to unravel them. I'm probably not following. Is it or isn't it the case that in the laboratory we have phenomena which there is serious reason to believe cannot be explained by QM? Can a skeptic really point to any 3rd person phenomenon and say, clearly QM can't explain that!? As for 1st person phenomena, a number of people, I among them, don't believe that there is really a problem. Just as sitting next to Galileo I would not have believed that there was any problem. (Now, granted, 1st person experiences for me have an incredible consequence: it means that causality must exist, and that there must be *time*! As to why I believe that such strong conclusions can be drawn, I'm sure that you all have been talking about the data already, and probably others have already explicated this viewpoint.) Therefore Davies suggests a new set of principles may well need to be coined regarding such strong emergent processes. The mechanics of consciousness may indeed be a case in point and the attempt to crack it's code with existing physical principles the wrong tools for the right job. If consciousness is the strongest card that can be played to support the idea that we need new laws of physics, then I'll join those who think that it's not much. It wouldn't make sense on evolutionary grounds for typical mammals such as ourselves to be unable to report internal impressions, plans, feelings, and anticipations. Lee Corbin
Re: Everything Physical is based on Consciousness - A question
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. Bruno Marchal has also written quite a bit about it in Chapter 5 of his (Lille) thesis. This is unfortunately is not as accessible as Tegmark's paper (not only is it written in French, which is not particularly a problem for me, but it is also written in the language of modal logic, which I'm only slowly gaining an appreciation of its power and utility). From what I understand of the chapter, 1st person communicable phenomena is described by a logic G, and incommunicable by G*\G. The square box operator [] represents knowledge, ie []p means one knows p. The interpretation of [] is basically that p is true, and that I can prove it. So this is essentially what we might call mathematical knowledge. How this relates to physical knowledge, which a la Popper is more not proven false, I don't really know. 3rd person phenomena on the other hand is identified with Z, where the box operator corresponds to proving p and not being able to prove p is false, ie basically the collection of self-consistent formal systems. Z seems remarkably similar to Max Tegmark's original proposal... I'm still rereading these chapters, and I'm sure I'll have some more questions on the subject other than Where does Popper fit in? Cheers On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:54:48PM -0400, Jeanne Houston wrote: I am a mere layperson who follows your discussions with great interest, so forgive me if I'm about to ask a question whose answer is apparent to all but me. I am very familiar with the first person and third person concept in everyday life and literature, but I am a little unclear about the specific meaning that it holds in these discussions; I feel like I'm missing something important that is blocking my understanding of how you are applying first and third person to your work in terms of multiverses and MWI. Could someone please direct me to some links that could help me better understand these perspectives as they apply to the discussions. Thank you. Jeanne -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 pgpziNHsqcwRd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Sims of Platonia
Greetings Well, it's of course always *possible* that what we see cannot really be explained by current knowledge. Even Galileo must have wondered if yet further laws were really governing his falling objects, laws beyond d = (1/2)t^2 and g = at. (He would have been right to wonder, of course, since in 1905 and 1915 we learned that there was a bit more to it.) But I would have had to side with a believer at the time: You've done it, Galileo! So far as we can tell, you have nailed it, to the greatest extent that we can measure it! Yes, I too would have wondered, but not for long: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I'd say. Precisely. You would have been a admirer of an amazingly powerful and predictive model that also happened to be incomplete. No shame there, but it illustrates my point that the solution to intractable problems that resisted the physics of past eras, often had to await a fresh fundamental approach before being cracked.You refer to SR and GR, I assume, but another good example I think is the many body problem tossing chaos into the orderly universe of Galileo's beneficiary, Newton. And the complexity of these systems are downright simple compared to the weather, markets and yes consciousness. Of course new approaches need not replace, but rather extend existing models. Still nothing, though, that says quantum mechanics and GR aren't perfect in their respective arenas? (Not, of course, that the reconciliation isn't a big problem itself.) Agreed. I just think QM is and will remain insufficient in the arena of explaining Consciousness and a host of other complex systems with testable, verifiable predictions. I'm probably not following. Is it or isn't it the case that in the laboratory we have phenomena which there is serious reason to believe cannot be explained by QM? Can a skeptic really point to any 3rd person phenomenon and say, clearly QM can't explain that!? Science is a method, not a doctrine. If QM can make testably verifiable predictions about emergent phenomena, then it succeeds; otherwise it fails. If consciousness is the strongest card that can be played to support the idea that we need new laws of physics, then I'll join those who think that it's not much. It wouldn't make sense on evolutionary grounds for typical mammals such as ourselves to be unable to report internal impressions, plans, feelings, and anticipations. This it seems to me is a black box approach. Shades of Skinner's behaviorism? Not terribly useful or satisfying IMHO. One could take the same approach to any biological system or process: pronounce it adaptive (at least sufficiently till now) and leave it.at that. Next problem!. Fortunately for any of us who will unfortunately suffer from one disease process or another (not the least of which aging), medical research chooses instead to look further than that and strives to understand the mechanisms and thus intervene with these amazingly complex systems. Complexity (or plectics as Gellman has suggested) and network studies have already helped inform this process. It seems likely that if new principles emerge from such disciplines, they may well contribute even more to this goal. It might also be that the same principles that would make powerful, tested predictions about, say, the immune system might serve to shed strong light upon the nature of consciousness too. Thus far, despite the best efforts of Hammerhoff, Penrose and the like, QM has failed to do so. We shall see.. Cheers
RE: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness
You're right in one way, but there *is* a difference between what we experience in the first person and everything else. It is *possible* to doubt everything about the external world, but it is *impossible* to doubt that you are having a first person experience/ a thought/ an observer-moment/ whatever you want to call it. -- Stathis Papaioannou From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 22:57:22 - There are many things we can't test conclusively - in fact there is nothing we *can* test conclusively. All scientific knowledge is provisional. So I don't see why you jump from the fact that we can't conclusively test for other minds to saying that we take it on faith. I'd say that I have a lot of evidence for other minds. Brent Meeker -Original Message- From: Stathis Papaioannou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 5:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness Dear Stephen, COMP is basically a variant of the familiar Problem of Other Minds, which is not just philosophical esoterica but something we have to deal with in everyday life. How do you know that all your friends and family are really conscious in the way you are conscious, and not merely zombies who behave as if they are conscious? There isn't any empirical test that can help you decide the answer to this question conclusively; in the final analysis, you assume that other people have minds as a matter of faith. This troubles me as much as it troubles you, but alas, there is nothing we can do about it. --Stathis Papaioannou From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:27:45 -0400 Dear Stathis, It is exactly this seeming requirement that we accept COMP by faith and demand no possibility of empirical falsification that troubles me the most. For me, a theory must make predictions that might be confirmed to be incorrect otherwise all one has, at best, is the internal consistensy of the theory. In light of Goedel's theorems, the utility of such theories to answer questions is in doubt. There must be always some way for independent observers to agree upon the falsifiable implications of a theory. Here we are considering a theory of observers themselves... Stephen - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 9:13 AM Subject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness snip OK, I agree. AI research is an experimental science. It may or may not be possible to build and program a computer so that it behaves like an intelligent and self-aware entity. Even if this difficult feat is eventually accomplished, there will then be the philosophical questions casting doubt on whether it is *really* conscious. This is the old problem of possibility of knowing whether other people really have minds like us, or whether they are just zombies acting like conscious beings. Ultimately, and regretfully, we can only be sure that we ourselves are conscious, and we have to take the existence of other minds on faith. However, if we believe that other humans are conscious because they seem to behave like we do, but refuse to believe that a computer which behaves in the same way (i.e. passes the Turing test) is conscious, then we are being inconsistent, and it is this inconsistency which I have called biological chauvinism. Having said that, it was not the purpose of my original post to show that observer-moments are Turing emulable. Rather, it was to show that Bruno Marchal's UDA can work without explicitly defining or explaining consciousness. I believe Bruno himself has aknowledged that the computational hypothesis (which he calls comp) may ultimately have to be taken as a matter of faith. This sort of bothers me because I spent a large part of my adolescence heaping scorn on religion and other faith-based belief systems, but I can't do anything about it. --Stathis Papaioannou _ Sell your car for $9 on carpoint.com.au http://www.carpoint.com.au/sellyourcar _ REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au
