David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
>
>Jesse Mazer wrote,
>
> > Isn't there a fundamental problem deciding what it means for a given
> > simulated object to implement some other computation?
>
>Yes, but does this problem need to be solved? I have no problem with
>the idea that some "physical object" (in one computation) can be
>"interpreted" in all sorts of ways - depending on how you map it. Does
>it matter if there exists a (weird) mapping between a rock and a
>universe with conscious inhabitants? The universe doesn't depend on the
>rock for its existence so who cares!
>
>- David
I think it would matter if you want to find the measure of various types of
observers/observer-moments--you need to know which ones are instantiated
more often in the set of all possible computations (to address this you
might also need a measure on all possible computations). Without some type
of measure, there is no way to solve the "white rabbit problem".
--Jesse
_________________________________________________________________
Expand your wine savvy — and get some great new recipes — at MSN Wine.
http://wine.msn.com
Received on Wed Jan 07 2004 - 23:37:31 PST