Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:48:19 EST

In a message dated 03/15/2000 1:05:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:

> George writes
> > This is porcine effluent as well as bovine coprophilia, enough to give
> > abdominal discomfort to a coprophagic melanogaster.
>
> It's getting a bit too unwieldy for my taste. I'm afraid I'll
> have to return to the tried and true. I gave it a shot.

I presume you're not the connoisseur I imagined you were. Oh well, let's
return to boring american gastronomy.

> Bullshit. You have so much, do you own a cattle farm?

> > This is definitely the weak point in you argument. You seem to assign
the
> > "consciousness" property with the same abandon and arbitrariness of a
> voodoo
> > grand master. You have no OBJECTIVE way of assigning consciousness which
> is a
> > purely SUBJECTIVE property. In addition, your argument depends on
> identifying
> > all human-like conscious computations over the scope of the Plenitude,
> which
> > is ludicrous because 1) you don't know how to characterize "human-like"
> > consciousness, 2) the human-like property may not be relevent - there
may
> be
> > other types, and 3) the size of the Plenitude makes any evaluation
> > impossible.
>
> Bullshit. You have so much, do you own a cattle farm?
> 0) Consciousness is an objective property. If it did not objectively
> exist, there would be no one around to see this argument.
> 1) Cognitive science would be useful in trying to guess which
computations
> have the property; the Turing test would not suffice.
> 2) So? It was just an example, one chosen because it would be useful in
> making many predictions of interest.
> 3) I have already explained how to use a regularization. The fact that
> the right way to do it for the full plenitude is unknown is a problem for
> the argument that the plenitude is real, one we should all hope to solve.
>

We are going very deep into philosophical arguments and are going around in
circles. In addition, I did not understand how you use your so called
regularization.

I wish I could say the following:

"Let's cut the Gordian knot and be brief. Give me the numerical value for
your own (absolute) measure. Just one number please, with whatever tolerance
and units as would be appropriate. If you come up with the number you win the
argument. If you don't, I win. This would put an end to the discussion."

However, you are engaging yourself on a third road. You claim that there
exist a way to compute absolute measure but this way is currently shrouded in
secrecy. You admit yourself that "the right way to do it for the full
plenitude is unknown." Your whole argument rests on something which is
unknown or even impossible to do. How can this rational discussion proceed on
such an article of faith?


> > Why not use the differential approach already in use in Physics for
> dealing
> > with infinite quantities such as vacuum energy. In Physics, the only
> energy
> > of relevence to the world we live in, is the difference between the
actual
>
> > energy and the ground state. Should you decide to apply this concept to
> > "measure," all you'll have to concern yourself with is the difference
> between
> > the measure of two objects, or the relative value of their measures.
>
> See 2) above and realize that I already was doing that.
>

George
Received on Mon Mar 20 2000 - 22:54:14 PST