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

2006-10-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
[Colin] snip 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 telling/instructive of the true nature/structure of the underlying

RE: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Russell Standish writes: 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. Computationalists do sometimes say things like cognition is

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:00:19PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Russell Standish writes: 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

RE: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Russell Standish writes: OMs are defined by some information. Very clearly more than 1 bit is involved, but it is presumably finite. Let us say that within this OM I am aware of two apples - 1 red and 1 green. The information describing one of these apples is the component I was

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread 1Z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I was using quantum state as synonymous with physical state, which I guess is what you are referring to in the above paragraph. The observer sees a classical universe because in observing he collapses the wave function or selects one branch of the multiverse.

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread 1Z
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

2006-10-15 Thread 1Z
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1Z wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The key point I think is that both the A-theorists and the B-theorists are partially right. The B-series is easily compatible with the A-series. The point about a block universe is that there is no A-series, not

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread 1Z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 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

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:53:07PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Russell Standish writes: OMs are defined by some information. Very clearly more than 1 bit is involved, but it is presumably finite. Let us say that within this OM I am aware of two apples - 1 red and 1 green.

RE: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Peter Jones writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 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