- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:45:41 +0200

On 21 Apr 2009, at 20:33, Brent Meeker wrote:

*>
*

*> I understand that the UD computes all different histories so they are
*

*> interleaved. But each particular computation consists of an ordered
*

*> set
*

*> of states. These states can belong to more than one sequence of
*

*> conscious experience. But the question is whether the order of the
*

*> states in the computation is always the same as their order in any
*

*> sequence of conscious experience in which they appear? For example, if
*

*> there is a computation of states A, B, and C then is that a possible
*

*> sequence in consciousness? In general there will be another,
*

*> different
*

*> computation that computes the states in the order A, C, B, so is that
*

*> too a possible sequence in consciousness? Or is the experienced
*

*> sequence in consciousness the same - determined by some intrinsic to
*

*> the
*

*> states?
*

The experienced sequence will be the same, I think. I would even guess

that it will correspond to the sequence in most singular low grained

computations going through those states (if our substitution level is

not too low...) , but things get trickier with A, B, C very close, I

expect.

Remember that if the Mandelbrot set is creative (in the snes of Post),

or universal (in the sense of Turing) then all your 3-states of mind

(future, present, past, and elsewhere) are densely distributed on the

its border. Subjective time is an internal construct, and with comp,

physical time is probably a first person plural construct (we share

our physical histories).

*>>
*

*>> I have still a residual doubt that a quantum computer makes sense
*

*>> mathematically, but if that exists, then there exist a reversible
*

*>> universal dovetailing.
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*> I don't understand that remark. Universal dovetailing is a completely
*

*> abstract mathematical construct. It exists in Platonia. So how can
*

*> the
*

*> existence of a reversible (i.e. information preserving) UD depend on
*

*> quantum computers?
*

Oh? It is just that I can use the quantum UD to provide an example.

But you are really correct, and if there is any reversible universal

machine, then I can build a reversible universal dovetailing. I could

use billiard ball or Wand never effacing machine. The difficulty is

that I can executed it only from a point in an infinite past.

I have the same difficulty with "running reversibly a program

computing all decimals of the square root of 2", or even just

counting . When will I start? I have to consider a non well founded

set of type ... 06 05 04 03 02 01 0.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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 Wed Apr 22 2009 - 18:45:41 PDT

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:45:41 +0200

On 21 Apr 2009, at 20:33, Brent Meeker wrote:

The experienced sequence will be the same, I think. I would even guess

that it will correspond to the sequence in most singular low grained

computations going through those states (if our substitution level is

not too low...) , but things get trickier with A, B, C very close, I

expect.

Remember that if the Mandelbrot set is creative (in the snes of Post),

or universal (in the sense of Turing) then all your 3-states of mind

(future, present, past, and elsewhere) are densely distributed on the

its border. Subjective time is an internal construct, and with comp,

physical time is probably a first person plural construct (we share

our physical histories).

Oh? It is just that I can use the quantum UD to provide an example.

But you are really correct, and if there is any reversible universal

machine, then I can build a reversible universal dovetailing. I could

use billiard ball or Wand never effacing machine. The difficulty is

that I can executed it only from a point in an infinite past.

I have the same difficulty with "running reversibly a program

computing all decimals of the square root of 2", or even just

counting . When will I start? I have to consider a non well founded

set of type ... 06 05 04 03 02 01 0.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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 Wed Apr 22 2009 - 18:45:41 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST
*