### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: ... If you died today and just by accident a possible next moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the future. That's the whole

### RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker writes: If you died today and just by accident a possible next moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the future. That's the whole problem. I could just as easily

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: David and 1Z: How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to successively approach the

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker wrote: It's even more than seeing where axioms and rules of inference lead. Given some axioms and rules of inference the only truths you can reach are those of the form It is true that axioms = theorems. For formalists, all mathematical truths are of this form. Brent

### Rép : Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

This is a post I wrote yesterday, but apparently did not go through. -- Le 23-oct.-06, à 15:58, David Nyman a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argument by:

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: The other issue matter is able to explain as a result of having no properties of its own is the issue of change and time. For change to be distinguishable from mere succession, it must be change in something. It could be a

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: If you died today and just by accident a possible next moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the future. That's the

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

- Original Message - From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted Tom Caylor wrote: Discovery is not simply a matter of seeing where a particular set of axioms and

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: The problem is not that there would be gaps, the problem is that they would all be conscious simultaneously. Peter, I know from the above and previous comments you have made that this notion of multiple compresent consciousness seems to you to contradict your own experience, but I

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: If you died today and just by accident a possible next moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the future. That's the whole

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: If you died today and just by accident a possible next moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

David Nyman wrote: 1Z wrote: The problem is not that there would be gaps, the problem is that they would all be conscious simultaneously. Peter, I know from the above and previous comments you have made that this notion of multiple compresent consciousness seems to you to contradict

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: If you died today and just by accident a possible next moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: ... And surely this is what prevents us from having the kind of 'multiple' experiences you have in mind. In fact, it illustrates the fundamental intension of the indexical term 'I' - other 'versions' of ourselves, informationally separated temporally and/or spatially, could equally

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: Why are POV's divided temporally?. If the BU theory predicts that they are not, it must be rejected. I don't think this is what needs to be at issue to resolve this point. The key aspect is that the structure of each OM is inherently what might be termed a perceiver-percept dyad -

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: David Nyman wrote: 1Z wrote: ... We *do* have simultaneous consciousness -- just not the same consciousness. Which is precisely my point. Just as you *do* have simultaneous consciousness of all OMs in which you are present - just not the same consciousness. But the

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Brent Meeker wrote: 1Z wrote: David Nyman wrote: 1Z wrote: ... We *do* have simultaneous consciousness -- just not the same consciousness. Which is precisely my point. Just as you *do* have simultaneous consciousness of all OMs in which you are present - just not the same

### Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: 1Z wrote: David Nyman wrote: 1Z wrote: ... We *do* have simultaneous consciousness -- just not the same consciousness. Which is precisely my point. Just as you *do* have simultaneous consciousness of all OMs in which you are present - just not the same

### RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Peter Jones writes: I don't see how a physical multiverse would be distinguishable from a virtual reality or a mathematical reality (assuming the latter is possible, for the sake of this part of the argument). The successive moments of your conscious experience do not