Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

From: Brian Tenneson <>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:17:27 -0700

Indeed, thanks. This has been very interesting. It will take me some time
to process this.

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM, GŁnther Greindl <>

> Dear Bruno,
> thanks for the long and informative post.
> > Hmmm.... The UDA should just show that, and I am not sure which points
> > you are missing. Suppose there is a physical concrete universe and that
> I know that I am missing a point somewhere :-)
> I have printed out your post and will work it through carefully, it will
> take some time before I can respond.
> > Please ask any questions.
> Thanks, as said above, will take some time.
> >Be sure you have completely grasp the first
> > person comp indeterminacy before anything else (but the 1-3 distinction
> 1-person indeterminacy is no problem. My problem begins along steps 6-8,
> especially when you dump the physical universe :-)
> This also relates to the duplication issue in the Bostrom paper:
> when one presupposes physicalism, then duplication seems to be the
> "proper" attitude - especially combined with a monist identity theory
> of consciousness with matter (no supervenience or stuff, see this paper
> for what I mean:
> Galen Strawson, 'Realistic monism: why physicalism entails panpsychism'
> 2006
> It is really good (for physicalists at least :-))
> And, as mentioned, I don't quite see how adoption of comp throws out
> physicalism (I understand the argument, but what about parallelism - is
> it a measure theoretic argument then against physicalism?).
> (Addendum: I mean physicalism in the broadest sense: I do not need
> Aristotelian substance or whatever, simple structural relations ŗ la
> platonic computations suffice -> this is no standard position, but I am
> working on this; the main difference between your position would be that
> the SR variant includes spatiotemporal coordinates (at least from the
> frog view) which could lead to duplication for identical computations
> except for spatiotemporal labels)
> Assuming your variant (comp, yes doctor, AR):
> I would be interested in what happens if, in a computational history,
> you start seeing another "you" being simulated: like a russian doll,
> comp within comp-> let us say you construct a VR that simulates for the
> VR Bruno the same environment as the "outside"/"mainline comp" Bruno
> sees -> would this comp within comp then add to the "outside" Bruno
> measure? (I hope it is clear what I mean) - anyway, I have written more
> than I wanted, another (real) response will follow when I have found the
> time to think through your previous answer to me.
> Thanks again for your effort to make clear yours ideas, it is well
> appreciated!
> Cheers,
> GŁnther
> --
> GŁnther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> Blog:
> Site:
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Wed May 07 2008 - 18:17:38 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST