Re: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.

2011-02-05 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
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 c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: ... I understand that this is your position but I would like you to consider a poor, dumb engineer who neither knows nor cares

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 Soltauandrewsol...@googlemail.com wrote: From my perspective this debate / clarification is getting lost in language problems. Given that a universal dovetailer must

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Andrew Soltau
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'

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Andrew Soltau
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,

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

2011-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
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,

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread 1Z
On Feb 4, 12:45 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/2/4 Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@googlemail.com 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

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-05 Thread 1Z
On Feb 4, 12:45 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 4 February 2011 12:34, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com 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

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

2011-02-05 Thread 1Z
On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: Are our brains in that VAT? Yep.

2011-02-05 Thread 1Z
On Feb 5, 1:27 am, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: Can the behaviour of the neurons including the electric fields be simulated? For example, is it possible to

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread 1Z
On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

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

2011-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Feb 2011, at 14:14, 1Z wrote: On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/2/5 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread Brent Meeker
On 2/5/2011 12:44 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/2/5 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists at every

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-05 Thread 1Z
On Feb 5, 10:07 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 2/5/2011 12:44 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/2/5 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: in MWI