Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-07 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

2011-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Feb 2011, at 23:15, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi Bruno I will attempt to define the terms in a manner satisfactory to both of us, and maybe we will understand each other this way. CTM Computational Theory of Mind is the concept that the mind literally is a digital computer ... and that

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-07 Thread Andrew Soltau
Hi Bruno So you can see that comp, as defined in sane04, is a weaker version of CTM. (And thus all consequences of comp are inherit by CTM). Certainly it is clear that your /yes doctor/ hypothesis subsumes CTM. But since it is a broader proposition, I fail to see why all consequences of

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Andrew, On 07 Feb 2011, at 19:13, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi Bruno So you can see that comp, as defined in sane04, is a weaker version of CTM. (And thus all consequences of comp are inherit by CTM). Certainly it is clear that your yes doctor hypothesis subsumes CTM. Not after step

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov. I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs than physical multiverses. Prove this. Once you take

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-06 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 06/02/11 08:51, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov. I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs than physical

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-06 Thread 1Z
On Feb 6, 8:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov. I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Feb 2011, at 12:26, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 06/02/11 08:51, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov. I dare say. But the

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Feb 2011, at 16:30, 1Z wrote: On Feb 6, 8:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov. I dare say. But the

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-06 Thread 1Z
On Feb 6, 5:30 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Feb 2011, at 16:30, 1Z wrote: On Feb 6, 8:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote: On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: That's my point, COMP does not

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-06 Thread Andrew Soltau
Hi Bruno I will attempt to define the terms in a manner satisfactory to both of us, and maybe we will understand each other this way. CTM Computational Theory of Mind is the concept that the mind literally is a digital computer ... and that thought literally is a kind of computation. from

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: 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: 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: 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

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
Hi Bruno In step seven what is proved is that MEC + 'big universe' entails that physic is a branch of computer science. Do you see that? I have no problem with the concept that psychology is a branch of computer science. Step 5 plays the big role there. You don't need to be annihilated

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi, 2011/2/4 Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@googlemail.com Hi Bruno In step seven what is proved is that MEC + 'big universe' entails that physic is a branch of computer science. Do you see that? I have no problem with the concept that psychology is a branch of computer science. Step

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 04/02/11 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, 2011/2/4 Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@googlemail.com mailto:andrewsol...@googlemail.com Hi Bruno In step seven what is proved is that MEC + 'big universe' entails that physic is a branch of computer science.

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/2/4 Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@googlemail.com On 04/02/11 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, 2011/2/4 Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@googlemail.com Hi Bruno In step seven what is proved is that MEC + 'big universe' entails that physic is a branch of computer science. Do you see

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Feb 2011, at 10:29, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi Bruno In step seven what is proved is that MEC + 'big universe' entails that physic is a branch of computer science. Do you see that? I have no problem with the concept that psychology is a branch of computer science. ? The point

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Feb 2011, at 13:43, Andrew Soltau wrote: 'White Rabbits' is Bruno's shorthand for physically impossible observations. At least, as I understand it. Not really. Just subjective aberrance. Like seeing a white rabbit with clothes and looking at his clock and saying too late, too

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
From my perspective this debate / clarification is getting lost in language problems. Given that a universal dovetailer must necessarily produce *all* experiential realities, all possible experiencable moments, how do you account for our endlessly repeated observations of an experiential

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread David Nyman
On 4 February 2011 18:44, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@googlemail.com wrote: From my perspective this debate / clarification is getting lost in language problems. Given that a universal dovetailer must necessarily produce *all* experiential realities, all possible experiencable moments, how do

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
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 necessarily produce *all* experiential realities, all

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
Hi David I have just been trawling the list, and found your wonderfully clear summary: As I've understood Bruno over the years, he has never asserted that comp(utational science) necessarily is the fundamental science of body and mind. Rather, he is saying that IF computational science is

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-04 Thread David Nyman
On 4 February 2011 19:59, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@googlemail.com wrote: Your revelation that ' Maudlin uses this result to reject CTM, and Bruno follows the opposite tack of rejecting materialism. ' makes things very much clearer for me, I had got seriously bogged down in all this. My

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-03 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 01/02/11 20:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: But it gives only all possible experiential realities, and even if these are by chance consistent with a physical quantum environment up to a certain point, it is tremendously unlikely that at each moment they will continue to be so. If you prove

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-03 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 01/02/11 20:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: In step 8 you state that 'a “physical universe” really “exists” and is too little in the sense of not being able to generate the entire UD*, nor any reasonable portions of it,'. However, if we adopt Tipler's Omega point scenario, we get infinite

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Feb 2011, at 11:28, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 01/02/11 20:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: But it gives only all possible experiential realities, and even if these are by chance consistent with a physical quantum environment up to a certain point, it is tremendously unlikely that at each

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 03 Feb 2011, at 12:05, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 01/02/11 20:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: In step 8 you state that 'a “physical universe” really “exists” and is too little in the sense of not being able to generate the entire UD*, nor any reasonable portions of it,'. However, if we adopt

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
Andrew, Let me try to be a little more precise or helpful. I just said, On 03 Feb 2011, at 15:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, but your point in step 8 is that a physical universe is *too little*, but with omega point it is not too little, it is as rich as arithmetically possible. Not at

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-02-02 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 03:29:52PM -0800, Travis Garrett wrote: Hi Russell, No problem at all - I myself confess to having skimmed papers in the past, perhaps even in the last 5 minutes... That I took a bit of umbrage just shows that I haven't yet transcended into a being of pure

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-31 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 27/01/11 17:44, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jan 2011, at 18:24, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 24/01/11 21:35, Bruno Marchal wrote: Thanks for all this. I will do some reading and then go through the points again. And get back to you. You are welcome. Ask any question. Bruno

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 31 Jan 2011, at 12:44, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 27/01/11 17:44, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jan 2011, at 18:24, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 24/01/11 21:35, Bruno Marchal wrote: Thanks for all this. I will do some reading and then go through the points again. And get back to you. You are

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-31 Thread Travis Garrett
Hi Russell, No problem at all - I myself confess to having skimmed papers in the past, perhaps even in the last 5 minutes... That I took a bit of umbrage just shows that I haven't yet transcended into a being of pure thought :-) Let me address your 3rd paragraph first. Consider the

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-28 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 02:32:15PM -0800, Travis Garrett wrote: I am somewhat flabbergasted by Russell's response. He says that he is completely unimpressed - uh, ok, fine - but then he completely ignores entire sections of the paper where I precisely address the issues he raises. Going back

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Jan 2011, at 18:24, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 24/01/11 21:35, Bruno Marchal wrote: Thanks for all this. I will do some reading and then go through the points again. And get back to you. You are welcome. Ask any question. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-27 Thread Travis Garrett
I am somewhat flabbergasted by Russell's response. He says that he is completely unimpressed - uh, ok, fine - but then he completely ignores entire sections of the paper where I precisely address the issues he raises. Going back to the abstract I say: We then argue that the observers

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-27 Thread Stephen Paul King
-Original Message- From: Travis Garrett Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:32 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Observers and Church/Turing I am somewhat flabbergasted by Russell's response. He says that he is completely unimpressed - uh, ok, fine - but then he completely ignores entire sections

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-25 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 04:56:00AM -0800, ronaldheld wrote: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf Any comments? Ronald I finally got around to reading. I am completely unimpressed. Two points: 1) His use of Physical Church-Turing Thesis

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-25 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 24/01/11 21:35, Bruno Marchal wrote: Thanks for all this. I will do some reading and then go through the points again. And get back to you. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Jan 2011, at 17:22, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 22/01/11 08:44, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Andrew, On 21 Jan 2011, at 16:08, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi I have an answer to the nature of the relation between the first- person and specific third-person phenomena. It is based very simply

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Andrew, On 21 Jan 2011, at 16:08, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi I have an answer to the nature of the relation between the first- person and specific third-person phenomena. It is based very simply on logical type. Here's the concept as brief as I can make it. As Deutsch, Barbour, Davies,

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-22 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 22/01/11 08:44, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Andrew, On 21 Jan 2011, at 16:08, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi I have an answer to the nature of the relation between the first-person and specific third-person phenomena. It is based very simply on logical type. Here's the concept as brief as I can

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-21 Thread Andrew Soltau
Hi I have an answer to the nature of the relation between the first-person and specific third-person phenomena. It is based very simply on logical type. Here's the concept as brief as I can make it. As Deutsch, Barbour, Davies, and others hold, the universe is clearly static. Relativity

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-17 Thread 1Z
On Jan 12, 10:50 pm, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote: I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great culturally maintained mental block subverts real progress. And, yet again, the participant doesn;t even know they are doing it.  Garrett says /The key

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Jan 2011, at 06:55, Colin Hales wrote: Hi David, I think feisty/curmudgeon is more apt than fierce... but yeah ... :-) RE: In other words, what is the relation, in your theory, between the first-person and specific third-person phenomena? Right to it eh? Call the two perspective 1-P

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-13 Thread Colin Hales
Hi David, I think feisty/curmudgeon is more apt than fierce... but yeah ... :-) RE: In other words, what is the relation, in your theory, between the first-person and specific third-person phenomena? Right to it eh? Call the two perspective 1-P and 3P OK. First, there may be a bit of a

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Ronald, Thank you very much to submitting this paper for comment! I must preface my initial comment with the statement that I am a mere amateur so you might choose to take my claims and arguments with a measure of sodium chloride. This paper contains a crude material monist

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-12 Thread Colin Hales
I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great culturally maintained mental block subverts real progress. And, yet again, the participant doesn;t even know they are doing it. Garrett says /The key is that observers are just a particular type of information, as is

Re: Observers and Church/Turing

2011-01-12 Thread David Nyman
Gawd, I've missed you Colin, you fierce old thing! Is it wet where you are or is the inundation confined to poor old Brisbane? I suppose you know that Bruno and you agree (at least in my estimation of your lines of argument) that observation is the key phenomenon to be explained at the outset,