Dear Bruno,
I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy with the notion of "a
finite unique physical universe" in Step 8 of the UDA! In my thinking each
and every observer has its own unique "finite unique physical universe"
(thus each 1p is unique and FPI follows from the inability to exactly
compute some one elses 1p from yours. See A.A. Markov's theorem of the
computational intractability of the decision process of whether a pair of
4-manifolds are smooth diffeomorphic as a form of FPI argument.)
A real 3-p would be the intersection of infinitely many of 1p's of
observers, it has vanishing or "null" content. We can obtain all that we
know as "physics" by the notion of what some mutually consistent 1p have in
common. (Thus a "substitution level" obtains automatically.)
If a pair of observers are such that their 1p's cannot be consistently
combined, then they cannot be said to interact or communicate. I start my
reasoning with infinitely many observers, not one. It makes a difference in
our respective thinking.
Your result that there cannot exist "a finite unique physical universe"
in Step 8 is correct, but you are misinterpreting what this means, IMHO.
One should not assume an absolute, Laplacean or Platonic version of a
"physical universe" can exist since such would be completely separated from
observers and measurements and thus not have any particular definite
properties! At most it would have all possible properties which sums to a
null set, as Russell Standish argued in A theory of Nothing.
We do not need to assume any kind of primitive physical world that exist
independent of observer, as you point out in Step 8. We can obtain physical
worlds or "realities" by considering the commonalities and mutual
consistent descriptions of many observers (that can be distinguished by
observers in the "reality". Again, I am using your definition of an
observer.
*Observers generate worlds by their participation with each other.
Worlds support and implement computations. Computations generate new
observers.* The circle does not close unless there is no measure of change
(time). It is a cycle, like a helix, eternally evolving and flowing, not a
vicious circle.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
>>>>> conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
>>>>> a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea
>>>>> that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous?
>>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
>>>> made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
>>>> progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
>>>> becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically
>>>> performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must
>>>> exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a
>>>> form of mysticism.
>>>>
>>>
>> It's speculation, just like Bruno's speculation that physics can be
>> recovered from the UD and modal logic.
>>
>
> No. UDA is a proof (or argument, as in step 8 I have to use Occam) that
> any rational person and indeed machine can understand that if it/she/he can
> survive with a digital brain "qua computatio", the physics can be recovered
> from UD and the modal logic.
>
> the speculative covers only the "yes doctor", and the Church thesis (and
> thus the minimal amount of arithmetic to provide a sense to Church thesis).
>
> Then AUDA does the job, constructively. It is an immense task, but I get
> already the propositional level of each points of view, including the logic
> of knowledge, observation, and sensations.
>
> The only problem is that things get quickly technically very difficult,
> but the contrary would have been astonishing.
>
> Or you believe in a finite unique physical universe, and that step 8 does
> not succeed in showing that it is a red herring?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>> Brent
>>
>> It may be a problem that I'm not producing a theory of consciousness
>>> to your satisfaction, but which part of the claim I made do you
>>> actually disagree with?
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
[email protected]
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
