Re: FIN

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 11:58:34 -0700

Hello Jacques

On 01-Sep-01, Jacques Mallah wrote:
> Hello. (This is not posted to the list as you just replied to me
> directly. If that was unintentional you can sent replies to the list,
> I'm just pointing it out.)
>
>>> Ok, although I would say to be more precise that you should
>>> identify yourself with an implementation of a computation. A
>>> computation must be performed (implemented) for it to give rise to
>>> consciousness.
>>
>> This seems incoherent. What's the point of a computational
>> explanation of the world if it requires that the computation be
>> implemented...in some super-world?
>
> The basic computational explanation is not of the world - it's of
> conscious observations. As for the arena where things get implemented
> - that could either be a physical world, or it could be Plato's realm
> of math.
> Either way makes little difference for these issues, but surely at
> least one of those exists.

That an implementation might be in another physical world I can
understand.

I don't see how an implementation can be in Plato's realm of
mathematics. In mathematics there are axioms and theorems and proofs -
none of these imply any occurence in time. You might be able to impose
an order on theorems (ala' Godel) and it might be possible to identify
this with time (although I doubt this can work), but even so it is just
a single order that is implicit - there is no way to distinguish two
different "implementations" of this order.

Brent Meeker
 The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
if there
is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but
blind
pitiless indifference.
      
      ---Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden
Received on Sat Sep 01 2001 - 13:05:43 PDT