Hi Bruno,
> I think you are correct, but allowing the observer to be mechanically
> described as obeying the wave equation (which solutions obeys to comp),
Hmm well if you have a basis, yes; - but "naked" infinite-dimensional
Hilbert Space (the "everything" in QM)? With MAT we do not only
concentrate on OMs (as with COMP) but on all states (which maybe don't
have an OM)
> I mean Everett is really SWE+COMP.
Ok I have not looked at it this way yet - how does COMP enter the
picture automatically in the Everett interpretation? I am missing
something here. Do you mean because all the solutions are computable?
(but see objection above)?
> With MAT we haven't (except bibles, myth, etc.). There is no standard
> notion of mat histories,
I agree - that is why I think COMP is a better guess than MAT - although
I still have some quibbles ...
> deployment with comp). To have MAT correct, you have to accept not only
> actual infinities, but concrete actual infinities that you cannot
> approximate with Turing machine, nor with Turing Machine with oracle.
> You are a bit back to literal angels and fairies ...
Yes, we agree.
> As I said many times, COMP is my favorite working *hypothesis*. It is my
...
> MAT has been a wonderful methodological assumption, but it has always
> being incoherent, or eliminativist on the mind.
Ok. But what do you think of the following: Bertrand Russell's neutral
monism (also Feigl and others) is an interesting metaphysical "theory":
one would have a basic "mind-stuff" - protoexperientials - which would
follow the laws of comp.
It would not be a dualism, it would be mind-monism, but the "objects"
being computed would not be OMs directly but some kind of basic
mind-components - this idea is not new, in fact these objects would
correspond to the "dharmas" of yogacara (and also Theravada Buddhism,
but not so clearly there). (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmas#Dharmas_in_Buddhist_phenomenology)
One would lose the wonderful OM-COMP correspondence (which I think is an
important feature of your COMP) and get some kind of "binding problem"
again - how a unified consciousness results from the "dharmas"; but one
would be able to better explain how we have shareable histories (which
is I think a _weak point_ of COMP if related directed to OMs - as has
already been mentionend on the list, we can drift into solipsism with
COMP quite easily (and I don't see why shareable histories of any great
measure should evolve)
>> p.s.: I am looking forward to your further MGA posts (how far will they
>> go, you have hinted up to MGA 5?) and the ensuing discussion, I have
>> very much enjoyed reading all this stuff.
>
>
> Thanks. And so you believe that MAT+MEC makes Alice conscious through
> the projection of its brain movie!
Yes, if MAT+MEC is assumed, I would believe this. And I would not yet
accept it as an "absurdity" and ruling out of MAT+MEC - although I would
see that it is beginning to get very strange *grin*
>You really want me to show this is
> absurd. It is not so easy, and few people find this necessary, but I
> will do asap (MGA 3).
Yup :-)
And I would be interested what you think of the idea to let COMP govern
a "dharma"-level and not an OM-level directly.
Cheers,
Günther
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Nov 24 2008 - 10:34:22 PST