Re: this very moment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jacques Mallah wrote: Another way to go is to consider an implementation of a computation, extended over time, as you. You can't tell which implementation you are just from the available information in an observer-moment. I strongly disagree with this statement. I certainly do believe this is possible, even if we aren't practiced at doing it (currently). Scott -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBOSERlVpGPE+AF6qBAQEwNQP/WycDg0mZqx3/J5RFsigygnPQSrf+R/K5 /Enx6JBgyjFnITC5pcfnIPggzH/tRJXfjn2kUWGzoGelD9srG6LyVW/c8wYmd8pk uCr2wqd6UHyTpe60F1eW50cefHw2OGdSiZDUHCXiCIz3aJOn7HyCHRvUXEFcL4qi R2RJt7bsq+w= =5rzs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: this very moment
--- Higgo James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the ideas Bruno, Jacques and I put forward are idealist. My view is that math is fundamental. Ideas should be derivable from the math of computations. The physical world is real in that it is mathematical. = - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/
Re: this very moment
- Original Message - From: Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Alastair Malcolm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 May 2000 20:35 Subject: Re: this very moment -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 13 May 2000, Alastair Malcolm wrote: One way is to try to establish common ground. For example, many people agree that 'everything' should only include that which is logically possible (so round squares are excluded). If this is agreed, then it is reasonable to suppose, as at least a first approximation, that each entity or world that exists should be formally describable in some way, in principle. This is disappointing. I think metaphysics can become quite boring, but limiting discussions when there is an interest seems like a crime. I've been showing my friends square circles since I was in highschool. It's all relative perception. I suggest you read a basic book on logic (ideally including something on modal logic) to get an idea of what 'logical possibility' is. You'll find it not so limiting as you seem to think. Alastair
Re: this very moment
Fabien Besnard wrote: I surely am [materialist], as anyone should be when dealing about a scientific subject. This is a rather dogmatic assertion. See my posts, or my thesis* for a proof that computationnalism entails materialism contradict very weak form of Occam. Bruno * which you can download from my url. It is in french ! PS I consult my mail only once a week (I'm busy!). I still read it, though. Bruno MARCHALPhone : +32 (0)2 650 27 11 Universite Libre Fax : +32 (0)2 650 27 15 de Bruxelles Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50 IRIDIA, CP 194/6 B-1050 BRUSSELSEmail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Belgium URL : http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
RE: this very moment
From: Higgo James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: this very moment Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:26:35 +0100 Jacques is right: there is no first person, so the distinction is spurious. 'you' have no 'future' so it's meaningless to try to predict it Well yes, that's true, if you define 'you' as a single observer moment. My question to Jacques is, if you do not believe in the 1st person phenomenon, then how do you explain probability (which you say does exist)? Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: this very moment
- Original Message - From: Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: this very moment
Jacques Mallah wrote: --- Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There needs to be psychological time in which to unravel the history embedded in a single observer moment. Once one has psychological time, one may as well go the whole hog and have a complete history, with an infinite number of observer moments. Its an Occam thing. Nothing rules out a Groundhog Day type of effect, where we endlessly keep playing back a small piece of history (eg 1 day, or even 10 seconds if you like), however I suspect this is a more complicated explanation (therefore of smaller measure) than just assuming that we live our whole lives. You were doing fine until that little word we. I'm not sure what your point is here. It doesn't seem to relate to your following comment. Other obsever-moments exist, but there's no reason to insist that the ones that seem psychologically to be in our past or future are really the same person. Identity is based on recognition. If we recognise these other observer-moments as belonging to us, then surely the simplest explanation is that we really did observe them. I grant that it is logically possible for us _not_ to have experienced them - perhaps they were experienced by others, and implanted in our brains by aliens. = - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967 UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965 Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
RE: this very moment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 3 May 2000, Higgo James wrote: 'Psychological time' is a concept of time, part of your current psychology. Occam would disapprove of assuming that psychological events are real events; assuming a hard, physical world when there is no need for one. I have re-subscribed to the list. Hopefully now I can post to it. Personally, I think there only needs to be difference ... because that will ensure that certain other aspects are also present. What's the point of this discussion, again? Scott ps: I'm interested in talking with people in direct messages with email. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBOQ/bqVpGPE+AF6qBAQHXwwQAtwtNdNCoW18AtZIFqdjU+QtSYpCkdNJ5 aPxhB1qm31ZWh9x63XgYnDsvpiIz8MxuzyTY4KQrdDUrnq277prcGoXiNp4UJnb8 tl9HO+Mw4mtz+iibBEB/HMIm7OGOg65bZFIZyT+xm8o/kJnvcYrsShfeesu6YEFO 8Pc1Czd0Xlc= =wsJa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
