Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/2/5 1Z > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists at every > > > moments splitting or differentiation to random universe, so the question > > of > > > what filter

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On Feb 5, 10:07 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > On 2/5/2011 12:44 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > > > 2011/2/5 1Z mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> > > > On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux > > wrote: > > > in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse ther

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On 2/5/2011 12:44 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/2/5 1Z mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: > in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists at every > moments splitting or differentiation to ra

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011/2/5 1Z > > > On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists at every > > moments splitting or differentiation to random universe, so the question > of > > what filter it out remains (if MWI is true)... > > > > What I want to say

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On 05 Feb 2011, at 12:08, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 05/02/11 01:11, David Nyman wrote: Bruno's argument is that if we nail our colours to computation for an explanation of mind, then we should expect any "physics" extracted from it to have just such counter-intuitive characteristics. Hi David T

Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

On 05 Feb 2011, at 14:14, 1Z wrote: On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Feb 2011, at 13:45, David Nyman wrote: I am saying that IF comp is true, then the laws of physics are derivable/emerging on the computations, in the limit defined by the first person indeterminacy. So, for

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists at every > moments splitting or differentiation to random universe, so the question of > what filter it out remains (if MWI is true)... > > What I want to say is "the answer is because *you

Re: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.

On Feb 5, 1:27 am, Colin Hales wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Colin Hales > > wrote: > > >>> Can the behaviour of the neurons including the electric fields be > >>> simulated? For example, is it possible to model what will happen in > >>> the brain (and

Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 04 Feb 2011, at 13:45, David Nyman wrote: > I am saying that IF comp is true, then the laws of physics are   > derivable/emerging on the computations, in the limit defined by the   > first person indeterminacy. > So, for someone who want comp false,

Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

On Feb 4, 12:45 pm, David Nyman wrote: > On 4 February 2011 12:34, 1Z wrote: > > >> What I think I'm still missing is the precise significance of "has to" > >> in the above. > > > If platonism/AR is false, there has to be a real physical world, > > because there is then no mathematical world fo

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists at every moments splitting or differentiation to random universe, so the question of what filter it out remains (if MWI is true)... What I want to say is "the answer is because *you* are in that environment", you the consciousness, the

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On Feb 4, 12:45 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2011/2/4 Andrew Soltau > I did answer to that... the answer is because you are in that environment... That's not answer. There are physical constraints on which enviroment a complex entity could find itself in, but not mathematical ones. Mathematic

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On 05 Feb 2011, at 12:12, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 05/02/11 09:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: If the primitively physical universe does the filtering, then it cannot contain an omega point, given that it will reproduce, as you said, a universal dovetailing, and so the indeterminacy on my computa

Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

On 05 Feb 2011, at 01:47, Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/4/2011 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Feb 2011, at 01:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/3/2011 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2011, at 01:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/2/2011 2:00 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 20

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On 05/02/11 09:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: If the primitively physical universe does the filtering, then it cannot contain an omega point, given that it will reproduce, as you said, a universal dovetailing, and so the indeterminacy on my computational continuations will bear on that dovetailing, a

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On 05/02/11 01:11, David Nyman wrote: Bruno's argument is that if we nail our colours to computation for an explanation of mind, then we should expect any "physics" extracted from it to have just such counter-intuitive characteristics. Hi David Thanks, this too is very helpful. 'Looking at' Fa

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

On 04 Feb 2011, at 20:34, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 04/02/11 19:22, David Nyman wrote: On 4 February 2011 18:44, Andrew Soltau wrote: From my perspective this debate / clarification is getting lost in language problems. Given that a universal dovetailer must necessarily produce *all* exp

Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

On 04 Feb 2011, at 19:49, David Nyman wrote: On 4 February 2011 15:20, Bruno Marchal wrote: What I think I'm still missing is the precise significance of "has to" in the above. It means that if we assume MEC, then, for explaining the mind whe have to explain the quanta from a theory w

Re: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Colin Hales wrote: >  I think perhaps the key to this can be seen in your requirement... > > " Doing this is equivalent to constructing a human level AI, since the > simulation could be given information and would respond just as a human > would given the same inf

Re: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.

on 05.02.2011 02:27 Colin Hales said the following: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Colin Hales wrote: ... I understand that this is your position but I would like you to consider a poor, dumb engineer who neither knows nor cares about philosophy of mind. All