- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Eugen Leitl <eugen.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:36:41 +0100

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 02:28:27PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*> of brain and the like. I of course respect completely that opinion; but I
*

*> point on the fact
*

*> that once you make the computationnalist hypothesis then it is the reverse
*

*> which becomes
*

*> true: even if locally pi is a production of the human brain, globally the
*

*> laws of physics logically
*

*> develop on the set of all possible beliefs of all possible universal and
*

*> immaterial (mathematical)
*

*> machines embedded in all possible computations (computationnal histories).
*

I respect that opinion, I'm just interested in theories which are

instrumental in solving this universe's problems. You know, trivial stuff:

wars, famines and death. A TOE which says: universe is information, every

possible pattern exists, observers which can observe themselves will, is a

bit sterile in that respect.

There's a little problem with some practical relevance I don't have an

answer, though, which I'd like to have your opinion on.

We have a finite system, iteratively evolving along a trajectory in state space.

We have observers within that system, subjectively experiencing a flow of

time.

I have trouble alternating between the internal and the external observer

view. So we have a machine crunching bits, sequentially falling from state to

state. This spans a continous trajectory. We can make a full record of that

trajectory, eliminating a time axis. When does the subjective observation of

existence assemble into place? The first time the computation was made?

I have trouble seeing my subjective observer experience as a sequence of

frames, already computed. Is the first run magical, and the static record

dead meat? I'm confused.

Let's bring a little dust into the run. Let's say we use a HashLife approach,

which assembles the flow from lightcone hashes. Does this screw up the

subjective experience? If yes, how?

What about computing a record of all possible trajectories? Is enumerating

all possible states sufficient to create an observer experience?

I haven't spent much time on this, so maybe you can bring some light into the

matter.

*> That's all my thesis
*

*> is about. I don't pretend it is obvious, for sure.
*

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>

______________________________________________________________

ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org

8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net

Received on Fri Jan 16 2004 - 11:38:14 PST

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:36:41 +0100

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 02:28:27PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I respect that opinion, I'm just interested in theories which are

instrumental in solving this universe's problems. You know, trivial stuff:

wars, famines and death. A TOE which says: universe is information, every

possible pattern exists, observers which can observe themselves will, is a

bit sterile in that respect.

There's a little problem with some practical relevance I don't have an

answer, though, which I'd like to have your opinion on.

We have a finite system, iteratively evolving along a trajectory in state space.

We have observers within that system, subjectively experiencing a flow of

time.

I have trouble alternating between the internal and the external observer

view. So we have a machine crunching bits, sequentially falling from state to

state. This spans a continous trajectory. We can make a full record of that

trajectory, eliminating a time axis. When does the subjective observation of

existence assemble into place? The first time the computation was made?

I have trouble seeing my subjective observer experience as a sequence of

frames, already computed. Is the first run magical, and the static record

dead meat? I'm confused.

Let's bring a little dust into the run. Let's say we use a HashLife approach,

which assembles the flow from lightcone hashes. Does this screw up the

subjective experience? If yes, how?

What about computing a record of all possible trajectories? Is enumerating

all possible states sufficient to create an observer experience?

I haven't spent much time on this, so maybe you can bring some light into the

matter.

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>

______________________________________________________________

ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org

8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net

- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*