At 10:05 +0200 23/05/2002, Lennart Nilsson wrote:
>I might not be on the same side as you and Juergen
>Schmidhuber on this, but I AM on the same side as David Deutsch which is
>comforting.....
Even comFORting :-) (You know the FOR list I guess).
I would say you are on the same side as almost all (if not really all!)
physicists.
And perhaps you are right of course!
Concerning the quantum Landauer explicitely defend the idea that
information is physical. I can even accept that a priori
the quantum information field adds evidence in that direction.
Now it happens that I gave a precise argumentation that IF we take
seriously the COMPutationalist hypothesis in the science of mind, THEN
Physics is no more a fundamental science, and physics becomes
a branch of psychology/computer science/number theory.
Now Deutsch explicitly subscribe to comp, so its physics is
at best redundant (the Schroedinger Equation SWE should be (and almost
be) a theorem of machine possible perception theory), or incorrect.
Personaly I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the reasoning and its
arithmetical translation is correct (it has been verify by many people).
So now it is just a question of
comparing the physics extracted from machine's (mathematical) psychology
with the physics extracted by nature observation (QM). Unfortunately that
leads toward non trivial math.
I call the argument UDA (for Universal Dovetailer Argument) and its
Arithmetical translation is called now AUDA. See my URL for pointers
to it in this list archive.
You can maintain physicalism if you want but then you must still explain
how mind (qualia and other first person sensation and knowledge) is linked
to that physical reality, and with uda/auda you will not succeed without
abandonning comp. You can also try to find an error in uda, and I would be
glad if you do so. Sincerely.
Bruno
--
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Thu May 23 2002 - 03:57:58 PDT