Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2013-10-12 Thread freqflyer07281972
And where you say: Any way, I don't defend comp, I just show that comp makes physics derivable in arithmetic, and that if you do it in some way, (using the logic of self-reference) you can extract a general theory of qualia, with its quanta part that you can compare with nature, and so

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2013-10-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Oct 2013, at 07:33, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I think I'd like to respond here: On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey all on the list, Bruno, I must

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2013-10-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Oct 2013, at 09:24, freqflyer07281972 wrote: And where you say: Any way, I don't defend comp, I just show that comp makes physics derivable in arithmetic, and that if you do it in some way, (using the logic of self-reference) you can extract a general theory of qualia, with its quanta

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2013-10-11 Thread freqflyer07281972
Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I think I'd like to respond here: On Saturday, November 10, 2012 4:32:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey all on the list, Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Nov 2012, at 19:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/13/2012 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2012, at 00:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/12/2012 12:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2012, at 17:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote:

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Nov 2012, at 20:27, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/12/2012 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/10/2012 10:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Nov 2012, at 00:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/12/2012 12:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2012, at 17:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote: This is what I wish to know and understand as well! AFAIK, comp seems to only define a single

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-13 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/13/2012 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2012, at 00:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/12/2012 12:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2012, at 17:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote: This is what I wish to know and understand as

Re: Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Roger Clough
the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-10, 23:00:23 Subject: Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible? On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I think

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Nov 2012, at 20:46, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/10/2012 8:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/10/2012 10:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions:

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Nov 2012, at 00:33, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/11/2012 12:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 05:00, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I think the argument is that

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Nov 2012, at 01:13, freqflyer07281972 wrote: So why the big fuss over teleportation when the UDA is really all about establishing that comp is consistent and implies computational/ machine metaphysics rather than materialism? Well, it would seem to me the entire argument stands or

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Nov 2012, at 17:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/10/2012 10:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/12/2012 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/10/2012 10:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-12 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/12/2012 12:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2012, at 17:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 21:16, Stephen P. King wrote: This is what I wish to know and understand as well! AFAIK, comp seems to only define a single conscious mind! ? That is contradicted by step

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Nov 2012, at 02:14, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) COMP - NOT MAT MAT - NOT COMP NOT MAT or NOT COMP I keep COMP as

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Nov 2012, at 02:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) COMP

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Nov 2012, at 05:00, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain) is required for intersubjectivity between minds. It is an anti-solipsism

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/10/2012 8:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) COMP -

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/10/2012 10:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/10/2012 11:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain) is required for intersubjectivity

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/11/2012 12:24 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 08:43:29PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I'm not sure how Bruno argues for it, but my version goes something like: 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness 2) We expect

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/11/2012 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 02:14, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) COMP - NOT MAT MAT -

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Stephen P. King
On 11/11/2012 12:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Nov 2012, at 05:00, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain) is required for

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread freqflyer07281972
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey all on the list, Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish to

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:13:38PM -0800, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: but rather the less appealing conclusion that, perhaps, the teleportation required in your entire

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread meekerdb
On 11/11/2012 4:13 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey all on the list, Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this teleportation

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread meekerdb
On 11/11/2012 4:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote: And many good reasons for thinking it is possible in a Multiverse, as pointed out by David Deutsch. Time travel into the past is simply equivalent to going somewhere else in the Multiverse, or to use the Borge Library of Babel analogy, selecting a

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-11 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:54:10PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/11/2012 4:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote: And many good reasons for thinking it is possible in a Multiverse, as pointed out by David Deutsch. Time travel into the past is simply equivalent to going somewhere else in the Multiverse,

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread John Mikes
Dear Dan, you make a lot of sense. Not so surprizing, though: thought experiments are created for handling impossible (and NOT knowable) circumstances in the tenets of (possible? believed?) scientific figments. Like e.g. the EPR. Or: teleportation (a decade-long bore for me - sorry, Fellows). My

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread meekerdb
On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey all on the list, Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish to simply conclude from the entire argument that the correct substitution level is,

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Nov 2012, at 10:11, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey all on the list, Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this teleportation business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish to simply conclude from the entire argument that the correct substitution

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread meekerdb
On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) COMP - NOT MAT MAT - NOT COMP NOT MAT or NOT COMP I keep COMP as a working hypothesis, as I have no clue what

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) COMP - NOT MAT MAT - NOT COMP NOT MAT or NOT COMP

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread meekerdb
On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:14:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 1:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. UDA shows the equivalent propositions: (MAT is weak materialism: the doctrine that there is a primitive physical reality) COMP -

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain) is required for intersubjectivity between minds. It is an anti-solipsism requirement. But how does the requirement for

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread meekerdb
On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 07:02:04PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 5:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I think the argument is that association with a body (or brain) is required for intersubjectivity between minds. It is an anti-solipsism

Re: Doesn't UDA simply imply that teleportation is impossible?

2012-11-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 08:43:29PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I'm not sure how Bruno argues for it, but my version goes something like: 1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness 2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment