Re: being inside a universe

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:27:13 -0700

Here's a new question for you, Bruno. What interpretation of probability
theory do you subscribe to? I've been saying that the meaning of
probabilities come from decision theory and specificly a probability only
has meaning if it actually is relevant to making a decision. So far no one
has posted a disagreement with that philosophy, but perhaps we don't all
agree. Would you like to clarify your position on this issue?

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 04:13:54PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The mind-body problem is hard to formulate purely formally because it
> search a link between the somehow formal body and the non formal mind.

I think you can formalize the problem, or at least an aspect of it, in the
language of decision theory. So perhaps you can come back to this question
after reading Joyce's book.

> Come on, I'm sure you see what I mean. (Of course "functional substitution"
> is an interesting concept by itself. It would be just a slight exaggeration
> to say that the lambda calculus and even category theory has been invented
> for making that concept precise). In the uda frame, once the level of
> digital substitution has been chosen, a substitution is functional if it
> preserves the counterfactuals input/output relations of the thing which
> is substituted.

You claimed that the concept of causality is problematic. So how do you
define "counterfactuals input/output relations" without
reference to causality?

> I have written more in this list than I will ever be able to write in
> a paper. I have begin at least four papers; I don't know if I will
> finish them. "Our field" overlaps too much disciplines. Either the
> papers grow too much, or the paper became relatively incomprehensible.
> Perhaps I should write a book instead. I don't know.
> I must think about that. Advices are welcome.

Sorry, I'm not an academic and have no idea how things work in that world.
I just want you to write your ideas down in a comprehensive form that I
can understand.
Received on Sat Jul 20 2002 - 16:28:49 PDT