### Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: How do you handle the Russell paradox with the set of all sets that does not contain itself? Does that set contain itself or not? My answer is that that set does not contain itself, because no set can contain itself. So the set of all

### Re: QTI euthanasia

On Oct 23, 5:34 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I am copied to two locations A and B, with each copy being identical, it seems reasonable to say that I have a 1/2 probability iof finding myself at A and a 1/2 probability of finding myself at B. But if I am copied perfectly

### Re: QTI euthanasia

On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Measure theory is the branch of math which has been invented to tackle those infinities, and those similarity relations. I don't know much about measure theory. I understand a bit about how it's supposed to tackle those infinities, but I

### Re: QTI euthanasia

On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But ok, perhaps I have make some progress lately, and I will answer that the probability remains invariant for that too. The probability remains equal to 1/2 in the imperfect duplication (assuming 1/2 is the perfect one). But of

### Re: QTI euthanasia

On Oct 30, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Of course the point is that you're not the same you from moment to moment in the sense of strict identity of information down to the molecular level, or even the neuron level. I agree, but that doesn't change the point I was trying to

### Re: QTI euthanasia

On Nov 2, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Assuming comp the answer should be this: If you agree that you survive (100%) in some car accident where you lose some 90% of you (third and first person descriptions), then accepting one halve in the WM perfect duplication, entails P= 1/2

### Re: QTI euthanasia

On Nov 1, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: We can ask how similar each one is to the Kory that stepped into the teleporter, but there's no fact of the matter about which one is *really* Kory. I completely agree with that. But I don't agree with (and don't think the above implies) the

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 5, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Just consider the computation which correspond to your actual real life. That computation is encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the Universal Deploiement, which is itself encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the set of all

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 7, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Do you understand that if comp is false, then arithmetical truth contains (immaterial) zombies (because it contains already the relative implementations of all solutions of Schroedinger equations and variant, if only that for example ...)?

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: I think I agree with Bruno that it is *logically* possible, e.g. accidental zombies. It's just not nomologically possible. I'm not sure what counts as an accidental zombie. Do you mean something like the following: I can write a very short

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 9, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: It's sort of what I meant; except I imagined a kind of robot that, like your Turing test program, had it's behavior run by a random number generator but just happened to behave as if it were conscious. Ok. That works just as well for me.

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 9, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: I'm with you and Dennett - except I'm reserved about the use of logical possibility. Fair enough. I might be misusing that term. Maybe a better way to state my position would be that I think the standard conception of philosophical zombie

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 11, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem with Dennett is that he takes physical reality for granted. I agree. But from his perspective, the burden is on us to explain why we can't take physical reality for granted. I've never seen the arguments laid out quite clearly

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: First, I have never stop to work on that and try to share the argument with people interested in the matter. True. You're tireless! (That's a complement.) Second, it happens that sometimes I think the burden his on him to tell us what he

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Be careful with the term. The MGA is subtle and to explain it we will have to be more precise. For example here it is better to remember that only *person* are conscious. Computations are not conscious (be it soft or hard wired). Good point.

### Re: QTI euthanasia

Sorry for the long delay on this reply. On Nov 2, 2008, at 7:04 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Kory Heath wrote: In this mundane sense, it's perfectly sensible for me to say, as I'm sitting here typing this email, I expect to still be sitting in this room one second from now. If I'm about to step

### Re: QTI euthanasia

On Nov 13, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: I think there is a misunderstanding of the MWI. Ok. I wanted to try putting things in terms of the MWI rather than a more extreme version of many-worlds like Bruno's, since a lot more people accept the MWI. But of course, I can make the

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 14, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now a computationalist cannot say I believe that persons represented by unimplemented computations are conscious for the reason that all computations have to be implemented. Ok, I see your point. Computations are actions that people (or

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: For a non-materialist it seems that an un-implemented idea or program is an incoherent concept. So for the non-materialist there can be no such distinction as implemented or not implemented. I can't answer for Bruno, but in my

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 14, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Michael Rosefield wrote: Take this level of abstraction much further and what you have essentially is the 'dust theory' from Greg Egan's Permutation City. Actually, I think my formulation already goes further than the theory outlined in PC. Although it's a

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 15, 2008, at 5:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But if any computation can be mapped onto any physical state, then every computation can be mapped onto one physical state; and why not the null state? I guess I don't really have a clear picture of why the fact that any computation

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 15, 2008, at 5:22 PM, m.a. wrote: Isn't some sort of substrate necessary for any mathematical event, whether it be a brain or a screen or a universe? And isn't that substrate sufficiently different from the math to be called physical existence? That's certainly the prevailing

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 16, 2008, at 6:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some believe that for having a real conscious person, you have to implement it in a real primary material universe. It is clearly what Peter Jones thinks. I am saying that a person can be fully conscious like you or me, even when implemented

### Re: Little exercise

On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This question is addressed mainly to Jason and Kory, who, it seems to me, have still a little problem with step 7, if I may say, As far as I know, I understand and accept your step 7, but clearly something I've said makes you think

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The last question (of MGA 1) is: was Alice, in this case, a zombie during the exam? Of course, my personal answer would take into account the fact that I already have a problem with the materialist's idea of matter. But I think we're

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On Nov 16, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Günther Greindl wrote: nicely put (the below), it captures my current metaphysical position quite accurately :-) Thanks, Günther! It'll be interesting to see if we continue to agree as the MGA thread progresses. :) -- Kory

### Re: MGA 1 bis (exercise)

On Nov 19, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: So I'm puzzled as to how answer Bruno's question. In general I don't believe in zombies, but that's in the same way I don't believe my glass of water will freeze at 20degC. It's an opinion about what is likely, not what is possible.

### Re: Little exercise

Hi Bruno, I should probably let this thread die so that we can concentrate on the MGA thread. But there are a few more things I wanted to respond to. On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath wrote: In the meantime, I at least want to say

### Re: MGA 1 bis (exercise)

On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: I think you really you mean nomologically possible. I mean logically possible, but I'm happy to change it to nomologically possible for the purposes of this conversation. I think Dennett changes the question by referring to

### Re: MGA 1 bis (exercise)

On Nov 20, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Doesn't the question go away if it is nomologically impossible? I'm sort of the opposite of you on this issue. You don't like to use the term logically possible, while I don't like to use the term nomologically impossible. I don't see the

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am afraid you are already too much suspect of the contradictory nature of MEC+MAT. Take the reasoning has a game. Try to keep both MEC and MAT, the game consists in showing the more clearly as possible what will go wrong. I understand

### Re: Little exercise

On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Nov 2008, at 10:13, Kory Heath wrote: What is your definition of mathematicalism here? Strong definition: the big everything is a mathematical object. (But perhaps this is asking too much. The whole of math is already

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 21, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: A variant of Chalmers' Fading Qualia argument (http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html) can be used to show Alice must be conscious. The same argument can be used to show that Empty-Headed Alice must also be conscious. (Empty-Headed Alice

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Nov 2008, at 10:45, Kory Heath wrote: However, the materialist-mechanist still has some grounds to say that there's something interestingly different about Lucky Kory than Original Kory. It is a physical fact of the matter that Lucky

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: This is very similar to an existing thought experiment in identity theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_man Cool. Thanks for that link! -- Kory --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What you described sounds very similar to a split brain patient I saw on a documentary. It might seem similar on the surface, but it's actually very different. The observers of the split-brain patient and the patient himself know that

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote: What about a case when only some of Alice's neurons have ceased normal function and became dependent on the lucky rays? Yes, those are exactly the cases that are highlighting the problem. (For me. For Bruno, Lucky Alice is still conscious.

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 22, 2008, at 2:06 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Yes, there must be a problem with the assumptions. The only assumption that I see we could eliminate, painful though it might be for those of a scientific bent, is the idea that consciousness supervenes on physical activity. Q.E.D.

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So let us suppose that poor Alice got, again, a not very good optical plane graph, so that some (1 to many to all, again) NOR gates break down, in that precise computation corresponding to her dream experience. And let us project, in real

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 22, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Ok, but what if consciousness is a computational process that potentially depends on the entire state of the universe? Let's suppose for example that quantum particles are the fundamental building blocks, i.e. the hardware, and that

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 22, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: But how would they agree on this? If we knew the answer to that we wouldn't need to be considering these (nomologically) impossible thought experiments. They would use the same criteria that they use to decide that humans are conscious

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 22, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Which leads again to the problem of partial zombies. What is your objection to saying that the looked up computation is also conscious? How would that be inconsistent with observation, or lead to logical contradiction? I can only

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 22, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: So why should it make a difference whether those state changes are decided by gates in the cpu or a huge look-up table? The difference is in the number of times that the relevant computation was physically implemented. When you query the

### Re: MGA 1

and a sheet of paper and write the following on it: The patterns of markings on this paper were caused by Kory Heath. Of course, that doesn't mean that the molecules in this piece of paper touched the hands of Kory Heath. Maybe the paper has been teleported since Kory wrote it, and reconstructed out

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 23, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: Kory Heath wrote: Or maybe I'm still misdiagnosing the problem. Is anyone arguing that, when you play back the lookup table like a movie, this counts as performing all of the Conway's Life computations a second time? Why shouldn't

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 24, 2008, at 3:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: MGA 1 shows that MEC+MAT implies lucky Alice is conscious (during the exam). OK? MGA 2 shows that MEC+MAT implies Alice is dreaming (and thus conscious) when the film is projected. OK? I don't mean to hold up the show, but I'm still stuck

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 22, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Similarly, whenever we interact with a computation, it must be realised on a physical computer, such as a human brain. But there is also the abstract computation, a Platonic object. It seems that consciousness, like threeness, may be a

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 24, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If your argument were not merely convincing but definitive, then I would not need to make MGA 3 for showing it is ridiculous to endow the projection of a movie of a computation with consciousness (in real space-time, like the physical

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Kory Heath wrote: On Nov 23, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: Kory Heath wrote: Or maybe I'm still misdiagnosing the problem. Is anyone arguing that, when you play back the lookup table like a movie, this counts as performing all

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 25, 2008, at 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So you agree that MGA 1 does show that Lucky Alice is conscious (logically). I think I have a less rigorous view of the argument than you do. You want the argument to have the rigor of a mathematical proof. You say Let's start with the

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The question turns on what is a computation and why it should have magical properties. For example, if someone flips the squares on a Life board at random and accidentally duplicates the Life rules does that mean the computation is

### Re: MGA 1

On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You could have perhaps still a problem with the definitions or with the hypotheses? I think I haven't always been clear on our definitions of mechanism and materialism. But I can understand and accept definitions of those terms under

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 26, 2008, at 5:29 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Yes. Suppose one of the components in my computer is defective but, with incredible luck, is outputting the appropriate signals due to thermal noise. Would it then make sense to say that the computer isn't really running Firefox, but

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 29, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Threeness, computations and consciousness exist eternally and necessarily, and can't be created, destroyed or localised. I understand (I think) how threeness and computations exist eternally in Platonia, but I don't understand your

### Re: MGA 2

On Nov 30, 2008, at 3:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Yes, and I think of consciousness as an essential side-effect of the computation, as addition is an essential side-effect of the sum of two numbers. Ok, I'm with you so far. But I'd like to get a better handle your concept of a

### Re: Platonia and causality

On Nov 30, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Günther Greindl wrote: Kory wrote: I have an intuition that causality (or its logical equivalent in Platonia) is somehow important for consciousness. You argue that the the slide from Fully-Functional Alice to Lucky Alice (or Fully-Functional Firefox to Lucky

### Re: MGA 3

On Nov 30, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Günther Greindl wrote: I must admit you have completely lost me with MGA 3. I still find the whole thing easier to grasp when presented in terms of cellular automata. Let's say we have a computer program that starts with a large but finite 2D grid of bits,

### Re: MGA 2

On Dec 3, 2008, at 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I struggle with the question of what a platonic object actually is, even for something very simple. Let's say the implementation of a circle supports roundness in the same way that a certain computation supports consciousness. We can

### JOINING

Hi Everyone - I've recently subscribed to the Everything List, and have been browsing through the archives. I have to confess that I find some of the discussion there incomprehensible, but nevertheless it's exciting to find people who take this very unusual idea seriously. My background is in

### RE: Is the universe computable

At 1/18/04, Hal Finney wrote: Now consider all possible program tapes being run at the same time, perhaps on an infinite ensemble of (virtual? abstract?) machines. Of those, a fraction of 1 in 2^100 of those tapes will start with that 100 bit sequence for the program in question. [snip] Now

### RE: Is the universe computable

At 1/19/04, Hal Finney wrote: However, here is an alternate formulation of my argument which seems to be roughly equivalent and which avoids this objection: create a random program tape by flipping a coin for each bit. Now the probability that you created the first program above is 1/2^100, and

### Re: Is the universe computable

At 1/19/04, Stephen Paul King wrote: Were and when is the consideration of the physical resources required for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old first cause question? The view that Mathematical Existence == Physical Existence implies that physical resources

### RE: Is the universe computable

At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote: Saying that the probability that a given integer is even is 0.5 seems intuitively to me and can be made precise (see my last post). We can say with precision that a certain sequence of rational numbers (generated by looking at larger and larger finite sets

### Re: Is the universe computable

At 1/26/04, Stephen Paul King wrote: The modern incarnation of this is the so-called 4D cube model of the universe. Again, these ideas only work for those who are willing to completely ignore the facts of computational complexity and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. I think you and I are

### Re: Is the universe computable

At 1/27/04, Hal Finney wrote: One way to approach an answer to the question is to ask, is there such a CA in which a universal computer can be constructed? That would be evidence for at least a major prerequisite for conscious observations. Do you have any examples like this? In my opinion,

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

Bruno Marchal wrote a 10-point argument about determining whether or not we are simulated by some massive computer. Here is point 9 from that post: 9) Now, from computer science and logic, startlingly enough perhaps, we can isolate a measure on the 1-person comp histories, and this give us the

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

, but I no longer think that's what you were saying. My new interpretation of what you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong again) is that if you were to examine the entire ensemble of next-possible-states of *me* (Kory Heath) at this moment, you would find that (as a mathematical fact, part

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

At 10:36 AM 4/24/04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Does the fact that we never find ourselves in one of the bizarre, inconsistent worlds that are postulated to exist in Platonia cast doubt on the reality of these worlds and the validity of the underlying theory? Not yet. We know that the bizarre,

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

At 10:16 AM 4/25/04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Consider now a similar theory, but multiple copies of you are allowed. The theory predicts that there will be one billion branchings of the world in the next second, with each branch containing a person who shares all your memories up to that

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

At 10:48 AM 4/25/04, Saibal Mitra wrote: This is the ''white rabbit'' problem which was discussed on this list a few years ago. This can be solved by assuming that there exists a measure over the set of al universes, favoring simpler ones. I don't believe there are any grounds for assuming that,

### A Puzzle

One day, without warning, you suddenly find yourself in a featureless white room. In front of you are your old friends Blue Genie and Yellow Genie. The Blue Genie says, I'm about to make two identical copies of you (I'll destroy the original), and place one copy in a red room and one in a green

### Fwd: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

Forwarded at the request of the author: From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 25 April 2004 Kory Heath wrote: QUOTE- Yes, your theory states that the chances are 100% that some copy will find itself in the non-bizarre world. But the theory also states that the chances are very low

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

Hi Bruno, At 06:46 AM 4/26/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: The important point is that once we keep up comp through the eight points, we see that the laws of physics, whatever they are, must be given by the invariant in the comp-accessible worlds. I'm pretty sure I now understand points 1-8, but let me

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

At 06:08 AM 4/27/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: (BTW, concerning Parfit, he still believe (in his book Reasons and Persons) that we are token. I have already argued that with the comp hyp we can only be type. That means we cannot been made singular. The only argument Parfit gives for our token

### Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

At 10:17 AM 4/27/04, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't worry, I will try NOT to give a 120h course in mathematical logic which is just impossible without chalk black board. But I will try to give some insights. I must think how to do it. It will help me, btw, to prepare my talk in Paris and Amsterdam so

### Re: duplicatability or copying is problematic

At 01:25 PM 6/14/2004, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, Does your thesis survive without the notion of duplicatability or copying? As I have pointed out, QM does not allow duplication and I am hard pressed to understand how duplication can be carried out in classical physics. If

### Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

At 09:19 AM 6/30/2004, Bruno Marchal wrote: Also, you said that your are not platonist. Could you tell me how you understand the proposition that the number seventeen is prime. (I want just be sure I understand your own philosophical hypothesis). A quick aside: It might be better not to even use

### Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

At 03:25 PM 6/30/2004, CMR wrote (quoting www.fact-index.com): Mathematical realism holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.

### Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

To finish, Kory, I would avoid the term essentialist giving that its modern philosophical use is more precise than our admittedly rather imprecise use of it. I see what you mean, but we need *some* way of referring to specific (although perhaps imprecise) ideas or beliefs. I might feel

### Re: [InfoPhysics] Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

At 03:09 PM 7/1/2004, Jim Whitescarver wrote: Platonist reasoning is the antithesis of constructionism. Thanks for the clarification. In this short discussion I've seen at least three conflicting ways that people use the term Platonism: 1. Platonism == Mathematical Realism. 2. Platonism == The

### Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

At 02:45 PM 7/2/2004, Jesse Mazer wrote: As for the non-constructivism definition, is it possible to be a non-constructivist but not a mathematical realist? If not then these aren't really separate definitions. It may be that all non-constructivists are mathematical realists, but some

### Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

At 02:17 PM 7/2/2004, CMR wrote: Would it not be more to the point to ask whether I believe in an ideal computer No! It isn't more to the point. You may believe that all physical things are subject to entropy, and that therefore no physical computer could last forever, but you should still be

### Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

At 10:12 AM 7/3/2004, Bruno Marchal wrote: True, but if we want to make sure no confusion will ever appear later in the conversation we will never start. So it is better to tackle confusion when they appear. Yes, but some confusions are so easy to avoid! Confusions will always appear in the

### Re: observation selection effects

At 04:47 PM 10/10/2004, Jesse Mazer wrote: If I get heads, I know the only possible way for the winning flip to be heads would be if both the other players got tails, whereas the winning flip will be tails if the other two got heads *or* if one got heads and the other got tails. I agree with

### Re: observation selection effects

At 07:17 PM 10/10/2004, Kory Heath wrote: We can also consider the variant in which the Winning Flip is determined after people decide whether or not to switch. In a follow-up to my own post, I should point out that your winning chances in this game depend on how your opponents are playing

### re: observation selection effects

At 10:35 AM 10/9/2004, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: From the point of view of typical player, it would seem that there is not: the Winning Flip is as likely to be heads as tails, and if he played the game repeatedly over time, he should expect to break even, whether he switches in the final step