On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:15, Flammarion wrote:
>>
>> When discussing fundamental science, no use of the word "exist"
>> should
>> be taken literally.
>
>
> Fine. Then I am not literally being simulated by an immateial UD.
If you want. But my point is that NO use of the word "exist" should be
taken literally.
>
>
>>>> It would help much more if you were able to say "I don't understand
>>>> this or that in the reasoning, and give explicit reference to the
>>>> paper or posts".
>>
>>> The argumetn I am actually making is that your arguemnt is either
>>> invalid or has an imiplict premise. How am I supposed ot
>>> point to an implicit premise.
>>
>> By pointing on a step in the reasoning where you think I am using
>> that
>> implicit premise.
>
> That's where you tell me I am being simulated by an immaterial UD
I say this, but only in the following precise sense. Once you say yes
to the doctor, and if comp is true, you can survive by having your
instantaneous digital state of your generalized brain encoded in a
number, and reconstituted later. Then, that computational state, and
an infinity of more fine grained equivalent one, assuming your doctor
has chosen a correct substitution level, belong to an infinity of
computational histories. By Church thesis, the UD generates and
executes all computational histories (computations), notably all those
going through the state S, with and/or without oracles.
When I say you are simulated in the UD, I am making a shorthand for
saying this. And quickly your "solipsitic" 1-you is distributed
densely on the border of the infinite UD*, concrete in the 7th step,
arithmetical in the 8th step.
After MGA, you can understand that, saying yes to the doctor, makes
your consciousness not attributable to ANY particular universal
machine, but a more complex mathematical structure related to that
border, and which justifies also the observable, by the machine,
physical laws. And this make comp empirically refutable.
By MGA, your notion of literal ontological existence does not make
sense with comp. It is so much propertyless, than it cannot be used to
reify a notion of existence more than the apparent matter (given by
the 4th and 5th hypostases) stabilizes the histories in the UD. "real
matter" has no epistemological impact (with comp), it adds nothing to
any theory of matter consistent with digital mechanism. Let us discuss
MGA to see where is the problem. Or wait 'tilI I explain more the UD.
Have you understand the step seven? Have you see that the reversal
occur with the concrete UD, even if PM is needed? In the seventh step,
the UD is still material in *any* sense, including the primary
materialist one, if he desires.
Also, with a stronger form of Occam razor, and using AUDA, you can
bypass MGA.
Or if you invoke a degree zero of virtualisation ("the metal"), then
again, just say no to the digital surgeon. (thinking about some things
you said in another posts today).
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 Mon Aug 31 2009 - 20:37:22 PDT