.
It is not a scientific one to ask if they are justified. BTW I didn't hear
of any case of suicide caused by the belief in MWI...
Gilles
**
Gilles HENRI
Laboratoire d'Astrophysique
Observatoire de Grenoble
414, rue de la Piscine-BP 53
F 38041 GRENOBLE Cedex 9
FRANCE
Maître de Conférences à
A 11:16 +0100 9/06/99, Marchal a écrit:
WHY PHYSICAL LAWS ?
---
Chris Maloney wrote:
The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,
not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but
simply because the structures that do obey physical laws are
I'm just skimming atthe moment, but the idea of universes
containing SAS apparently observing a environment without physical laws.
seems absurd. How can a process occur, such as the process of observing,
without athe necessary sequence appearing to obey laws?
James, here you assume that
evidence against MWI, because the measure of worlds where you do not exist
is much larger.
Gilles
**
Gilles HENRI
Laboratoire d'Astrophysique
Observatoire de Grenoble
414, rue de la Piscine-BP 53
F 38041 GRENOBLE Cedex 9
FRANCE
Maître de Conférences à l'Université Grenoble I (Joseph
On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:12:38PM -0500, Jacques M. Mallah wrote:
On the contrary, it's the same. That is easy to prove: suppose
the MWI was false but assume the universe is spacially infinite, so there
are other people like you in distant galaxies. Clearly they have no
bearing on
the probability that you exist is itself very small, given the
initial conditions of the big bang. So in some sense isn't everybody a
survivor of his non-birth?
Gilles
**
Gilles HENRI
Laboratoire d'Astrophysique
Observatoire de Grenoble
414, rue de la Piscine-BP 53
F 38041 GRENOBLE Cedex 9
Gilles
You dont need 10^(10^16) bytes as one response is approriate to an enormous
range of inputs. A subsystem between the sensors and the HLUT converts
inputs into one of say 10^6 possible input-classes which is checked against
a much smaller HLUT. Or better yet, the input bounces around a huge
Is consciousness based on information or computation? Let me give an
example to explain what I mean. Suppose there is a computer running an AI
program. Assuming computationalism, this computation should contribute to
the measure on conscious experiences. Now suppose there are two computers
Why assume non-computable stuff without compelling reason?
Shaved by Occam's razor.
Jacques:
On the contrary. Why assume the lack of *any* given type of
mathematical stucture? A true everything-hypothesis surely would not.
Occam's razor says: don't add extra distinctions such as a
B.M:
Gilles Henry wrote:
But a conscious being cannot exist without being
perturbated by its environment (in fact we are conscious BECAUSE we are
constantly interacting with our environment).
This seems to me to be in contradiction with any standart
computationnalist
account of the dream
Note that one need not bring MWI into this at all. The only big
assumption is the existence of a copy machine. Instead of MWI, one
can think of the identical experiment being carried out on an
ensemble of, say, 100 hapless souls Albert, Bernard, Caroline, etc.
At time t1, some number close to
The point I made earlier, 'I am a HLUT' - and it may have seemed facetious -
is that we are, in fact, HLUTs. You draw your 'inside' and 'outsied'
boundary as you wish (it's all arbitrary), then look something up by
stimulating the inside (brain,HLUT, whatever) with a request. You get an
answer,
Gilles HENRI [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
... HLUT. As defined by Hans, it is ONLY programmed to
handle language, through exchange of ASCII characters
(am I wrong, Hans?).
That's as far as the last posting went. But it could have gone
further to define the robotic HLUT, organized exactly like
A breath of fresh air, Gilles. As I just wrote to Chris:
I believe that the idea of 'which me I am' is a red herring. Everything is
subjective, and can only be seen by an observer with a partial view of the
whole of reality. What the observer sees is determined by the partialness of
his view. So
14 matches
Mail list logo
