Fermi Paradox and measure
Hi all, Long-time listener, first-time caller. My favourite answer to the Fermi Paradox has been that the aliens are using nearly-perfect compression or encryption for their radio signals (if they're using radio), and that's why all we can detect is noise. However, tonight another answer occurred to me. What if we're living in a finite simulation? (Yes, I know we might be living in more than one at the same time.) Supposing this simulation has a physical substrate, and we're not in a Permutation City scenario, then the substrate must be finite and therefore so must the simulation. Maybe there are only enough computing resources to simulate the Earth and environs. We don't see any aliens because none are being simulated. Why just the Earth and environs? Well, a finite simulation has to stop _somewhere_. Maybe planet-sized simulations have a high measure because they're just the right size for some purpose. I'm again reminded of _Permutation City_ with the Autoverse that was really just Planet Lambert and its surrounds. Has this solution to the Fermi Paradox been thought of before? Thoughts? Ron H-E -- Ron Hale-Evans ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... http://ron.ludism.org/ Mind Performance Hacks book: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mindperfhks/ Center for Ludic Synergy: http://www.ludism.org/ (revilous life proving aye the death of ronaldses when winpower wine has bucked the kick on poor won man) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Dear Stephen, snip Comp, I am claiming requires more than just the mere a priori existence of AR (Platonic theory of Numbers), it requires a means to relate them to one another. Numbers are related by addition and multiplication. With Church thesis (+ Godel or Matiyasevich) that is enough. The observer says more and relates infinities of numbers through induction. Of course comp is more than just AR, you need Church Thesis and, in practice, the yes doctor faith. This latter requirement seems to require both a means to relate and distinguish Numbers from each other. Only the observer or the intellect will do that, although only the soul will appreciate. (Technical note: Observer, intellect and the soul are given by intensional (modal) variants of the Godel provability predicate; this gives the notions of person or the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus hypostases.) This is more than a linear superposition! We need a means to explain the appearance of Interaction: I read recently that some prominent scientist said something like that the physical realm is the means by which Numbers interact, I agree but go further to claim, with Pratt, that if we are required to have even some appearance of a physical realm, why not go all the way and put it on equal footing with the Ideals? (Symmetry anyone?!) Pratt solves the problem of dualism! Why do we still demand an incomplete and asymmetric Monism? I am not sure comp leads to asymmetric monism. But if you accept AR, third person incompleteness is not a matter of choice. We have to take it into account. The collection of everything computable is not itself computable. As to the notion of personal, it seems to me that what we mean by such is some means of self-referencing that is capable of updating, this brings in the notion of memory... I still do not see how any form of diagonalization obtains self-referencing absent some means that allows the entries in the columns and rows to both be themselves and relate to each other. It depends only of you. Normally the diagonalization post will go through that problem. Just be patient. Goedelization works because we have the tacit idea that we can write a representation of a number as a symbol of something physical, Here I disagree. Frankly. Godelization works for purely number theoretical reasons. giving it a persistence With AR (Arithmetical realism) numbers and their relation persists per se, or better does not need to persist at all, because persistence is only relative to change and numbers are beyond time and space, and change (assuming AR). Where is the Platonic paper tape? In Platonia. And if a platonic universal machine lacks platonic tape, she will continue her computations on platonics walls :-) *** [BM] Concerning Pratt's dualism, it seems to me it is a purely mathematical dualism a priori coherent with number platonism, although further studies could refute this. Open problem. I don't see Pratt reifying either primary matter or primary time, it seems to me. [SPK] Pratt does not seek to reify neither a primary notion of matter or time. His Dualism becomes a Russellerian neutral Monism in the limit of Existence in itself. When the notion of distinguishability vanishes, so do all notions of Predicates and Properties, all that is left is mere Existence. This is why I am pounding hard on the apparent problem that monistic Platonism suffers from a severe problem, that it is only a coherent theory if and only if there is some subject to which the Forms have a meaning and this subject can not be a Form! I agree one hundred percent! With comp this can already be justified in many ways: 1) The (counter)-intuitive comp level: no 1-soul or first person can recognize herself in any third person description done at any level. The 1-soul has no description, no name, it is indeed not a Form. 2) The limit of the self-extending self cannot be defined by him/her/itself. 3) When I interview the lobian machine, I define the first person by the knower, and I take the Theaetetical definitions of knowledge, and this gives thanks, to incompleteness, a non nameable, by any person, person. Technical reasons show how 1 2 and 3 are related. We can come back on this when people get some familarization with the diagonalization stuff. Any form of Monism will have this severe incompleteness that has been heretofore overlooked because of the continued use of the tacit assumption of a 3rd person Point of View. ? It is not tacit. Science prose have to be third person communicable.As Judson Webb argues the severe incompleteness is a lucky event for mechanist. First it makes Church thesis consistent. Indeed Church thesis entails incompleteness, so without incompleteness Church Thesis would be refutable (on this normally we will arrive soon). Strip
Re: A calculus of personal identity
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Bruno Marchal writes (quoting SP): Of course, it is not possible for a third person observer to be certain about first person mental states, and this would apply to our teleportee: he may feel as if he is the same person as he was prior to the procedure, but he might be wrong. If he is a zombie, by definition he feels nothing. I am assuming here he is not a zombie, that he has a memory of what he felt like pre-teleportation, but that he may be wrong about this. When we remember our past, we are doing something analogous to what we do when we look at someone else's account of their first person experience and try to imagine what it must have been like to have that experience. Memories of our past are generally more vivid and hold more information than writing, film etc., but there may come a time when people directly share memories with each other as easily as they now share mp3 files. The flaw in this argument is that the same considerations hold if he had travelled by train: he may look and feel like the same person, have all the appropriate memories, and so on, but how does he know that the original didn't die during the journey, to be replaced by a copy as would have happened had he teleported? Here I agree and see what you mean. That is why those saying yes to the doctor eventually should understand we do die at each instant. Like we do split or differentiate at each instant without any means to know that directly. If there is some sense in which a person's identity might be lost despite his physical and mental attributes being apparently preserved (and I'm not sure the idea is even coherent), there is no reason for nature to waste effort evolving and maintaining such an identity-conservation system, because it cannot make any difference to behaviour. I would agree if I was believing in Nature. As a scientist I am neutral about the existence of nature, but assuming comp Nature, like matter should not be reified. Can you think of any findings in evolutionary biology which count as evidence either for or against the existence of a material world? Of course, most scientists, like most people, assume there is a material world out there, but this is not a premiss on the basis of which scientific theories stand or fall. Comp itself cannot be proved but what can be proved is that IF comp is correct then comp cannot be proved, necessarily. So we have, somehow, to be open to non-comp beliefs. Put in another way: if you survive when saying YES to the doctor, you have to respect those who say NO to the doctor (unless you have bad intentions of course or are ignorant). The falseness of comp (or functionalism) does not necessarily mean duplication would be a death sentence. You are right but the reverse is true: if duplication (at any level) is a death sentence, then comp is wrong. But you a right, for example we could survive duplication because God is so good and so clever as being able to duplicate our non-comp-soul and link it to the genuine digital brain copies I don't understand why you say if duplication (at any level) is a death sentence, then comp is wrong. There must be a *minimal* level of duplication fidelity below which consciousness/intelligence is not preserved, no? Or are you using duplication to mean perfect duplication, in which case how can we have different levels of perfection? I we actually tried duplication, then as in all communication technologies, there would be errors and the duplication would not be perfect. But then the question arises, could the duplicate have all the memories and personality of the original but still not feel that he was the same person? In other words he would be a perfect duplicate from the 3rd person viewpoint, except that he would say he was not. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: A calculus of personal identity
--- Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP previous I we actually tried duplication, then as in all communication technologies, there would be errors and the duplication would not be perfect. But then the question arises, could the duplicate have all the memories and personality of the original but still not feel that he was the same person? In other words he would be a perfect duplicate from the 3rd person viewpoint, except that he would say he was not. Brent Meeker Brent: I may condone a 'flawless' duplication (why not? it is a thought experiment, I allow what I like...) BUT the recipient world has got to be identical, not only as is in the instant of the duplication, (eliminating any disturbing background differences from its past), but also as continuing in the same way (undifferentiatably from the original one) *beyond* that point, so the duplicate person 'learns' the same experiences after duplication with the 'original' one. Otherwise we talk futile. In this case, however, there is no new world, there is the good old one just continuing with the old person as was. Untistinguishably both from the old world and from the original person. Not only - as you suggested - from a 3rd person point of view, but in 1st person as well. There is a German proverb (joke?) for that: Warum haben wir die Kroeten gefressen? about a double bet back and forth. John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Fermi Paradox
Friends: whoever is interested in the real background of the stories behind the Fermi Paradox - and did not read this so far - should click http://www.setileague.org/askdr/hungary.htm and read it. I wanted to write the story, but first checked Google for authenticity and found this Wikipedia piece. Bon amusement John Mikes born Martian-Hungarian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi Paradox and measure
Ron, Bruno, et al.: I posted a rather 'easy' URL to the subject right now. More seriously: Alien (extraterrestrial, extrasolarian, extragalatical and I could add: extrauniversal (and I try to evade that unidentifiable life word) intelligence (though similarly hard to identify to wider consent) HAS its potentials, just within those almost unlimitable conditions of much wider domains than we can know of. SETI plans the first likely response 400+ years from now from respondents more than 200 lightyears away. I allow much longer within the unlikely conditions that 1. There ARE such technically/scientifically advanced 'civilizations' in the multiverse and they work by a similar logic and similar physical setup to our radio wave constructs we send out. 2. They reached the developmental level practically in respondable timeframe to ours, not (easily) millions of years earlier or later and 3. They like to respond. The Zookeeper theory (interesting article in Wikipedia at the site of the given URL) may be another obstacle. A variation of such story is under writing on my 'text considerations' and I want to include Fermi into it. 1.5 decades ago I wrote a 'sci-fi' story about the development of humankind on this planet, due to aliens' scientific experiment - that failed, - with definitely Zoo-relatable conditions. (Both the experiment failed and my attempts to get it published: those aliens were decent folks and I could not include enough sex and violence to make it salable.) My story supported the Zookeeper idea: they had an energy-kind unknown in our physical system, with 3 poles (one + one - and a third one) and a direct communication through it: mind to mind. They, however could 'read' us. No radio-waves. I think the Fermi paradox is just as obsolete as became my sci-fi story over 15 years. John Mikes --- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 26-juin-06, � 08:48, Ron Hale-Evans a �crit : Hi all, Long-time listener, first-time caller. Welcome. My favourite answer to the Fermi Paradox has been that the aliens are using nearly-perfect compression or encryption for their radio signals (if they're using radio), and that's why all we can detect is noise. Cute. However, tonight another answer occurred to me. What if we're living in a finite simulation? (Yes, I know we might be living in more than one at the same time.) Supposing this simulation has a physical substrate, and we're not in a Permutation City scenario, then the substrate must be finite and therefore so must the simulation. Maybe there are only enough computing resources to simulate the Earth and environs. We don't see any aliens because none are being simulated. If we are in a digital simulation then we are in Permutation City scenario. We do belong to all possible simulations, and your new answer does no more work. The preceding one is much more appealing. And this is more true given that we can expect higher civilization trying not to perturbate lower civilization if only for they scientific studies of their alien lifes (to which we would belong). Why just the Earth and environs? Well, a finite simulation has to stop _somewhere_. Maybe planet-sized simulations have a high measure because they're just the right size for some purpose. I'm again reminded of _Permutation City_ with the Autoverse that was really just Planet Lambert and its surrounds. Has this solution to the Fermi Paradox been thought of before? Thoughts? Yes, and I have already criticize similar reasoning (assuming comp). Perhaps you could see: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html But I find your first solution much more realist than many explanations of the Fermi paradox. Of course, such explanation belongs to the family of the alien want us not knowing they are studying us solution. There is still the problem of the rest of their non cryptic radio waves which they would have sended unintentionally in spaces without encryption at the beginning ... About aliens in our branch of our most probable and common histories, I have really no definite opinion and consider this as a complex subject. Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Stephen, snip Comp, I am claiming requires more than just the mere a priori existence of AR (Platonic theory of Numbers), it requires a means to relate them to one another. Numbers are related by addition and multiplication. With Church thesis (+ Godel or Matiyasevich) that is enough. The observer says more and relates infinities of numbers through induction. Of course comp is more than just AR, you need Church Thesis and, in practice, the yes doctor faith. This latter requirement seems to require both a means to relate and distinguish Numbers from each other. Only the observer or the intellect will do that, although only the soul will appreciate. (Technical note: Observer, intellect and the soul are given by intensional (modal) variants of the Godel provability predicate; this gives the notions of person or the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus hypostases.) This is more than a linear superposition! We need a means to explain the appearance of Interaction: I read recently that some prominent scientist said something like that the physical realm is the means by which Numbers interact, I agree but go further to claim, with Pratt, that if we are required to have even some appearance of a physical realm, why not go all the way and put it on equal footing with the Ideals? (Symmetry anyone?!) Pratt solves the problem of dualism! Why do we still demand an incomplete and asymmetric Monism? I am not sure comp leads to asymmetric monism. But if you accept AR, third person incompleteness is not a matter of choice. We have to take it into account. The collection of everything computable is not itself computable. As to the notion of personal, it seems to me that what we mean by such is some means of self-referencing that is capable of updating, this brings in the notion of memory... I still do not see how any form of diagonalization obtains self-referencing absent some means that allows the entries in the columns and rows to both be themselves and relate to each other. It depends only of you. Normally the diagonalization post will go through that problem. Just be patient. Goedelization works because we have the tacit idea that we can write a representation of a number as a symbol of something physical, Here I disagree. Frankly. Godelization works for purely number theoretical reasons. giving it a persistence With AR (Arithmetical realism) numbers and their relation persists per se, or better does not need to persist at all, because persistence is only relative to change and numbers are beyond time and space, and change (assuming AR). Where is the Platonic paper tape? In Platonia. And if a platonic universal machine lacks platonic tape, she will continue her computations on platonics walls :-) *** [BM] Concerning Pratt's dualism, it seems to me it is a purely mathematical dualism a priori coherent with number platonism, although further studies could refute this. Open problem. I don't see Pratt reifying either primary matter or primary time, it seems to me. [SPK] Pratt does not seek to reify neither a primary notion of matter or time. His Dualism becomes a Russellerian neutral Monism in the limit of Existence in itself. When the notion of distinguishability vanishes, so do all notions of Predicates and Properties, all that is left is mere Existence. This is why I am pounding hard on the apparent problem that monistic Platonism suffers from a severe problem, that it is only a coherent theory if and only if there is some subject to which the Forms have a meaning and this subject can not be a Form! I agree one hundred percent! With comp this can already be justified in many ways: 1) The (counter)-intuitive comp level: no 1-soul or first person can recognize herself in any third person description done at any level. The 1-soul has no description, no name, it is indeed not a Form. 2) The limit of the self-extending self cannot be defined by him/her/itself. 3) When I interview the lobian machine, I define the first person by the knower, and I take the Theaetetical definitions of knowledge, and this gives thanks, to incompleteness, a non nameable, by any person, person. Technical reasons show how 1 2 and 3 are related. We can come back on this when people get some familarization with the diagonalization stuff. I also agree that the subject to which the Forms have meaning cannot be a Form itself. But as my previous post(s) on this thread mentioned, I see it as a recognition of what is there. I like to use the word re-cogn-ize (again know). A year ago in a meeting of fathers and sons, the question was asked, What does the word recognize mean? My son, who was 8 years old, said, It's when you know something, and you know that you know it. Jesus said,
Re: A calculus of personal identity
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP) I don't understand why you [Bruno Marchal] say if duplication (at any level) is a death sentence, then comp is wrong. There must be a *minimal* level of duplication fidelity below which consciousness/intelligence is not preserved, no? Or are you using duplication to mean perfect duplication, in which case how can we have different levels of perfection? I[f] we actually tried duplication, then as in all communication technologies, there would be errors and the duplication would not be perfect. But then the question arises, could the duplicate have all the memories and personality of the original but still not feel that he was the same person? In other words he would be a perfect duplicate from the 3rd person viewpoint, except that he would say he was not. If the duplicate did not feel he was the original, then he wouldn't have all the memories and personality of the original, would he? Well that's the question isn't it. Is there something besides memories and personality that makes you you. Could you feel that your memories belonged to somebody else? I think that no duplication is going to be perfect - it's just a question of whether the difference will be detectable with reasonable effort. If one remembers having a green pencil in the first grade and the other remembers having a blue one, how could anyone know which is right? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---