Le 26-juin-05, à 03:22, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
> Le Samedi 25 Juin 2005 18:51, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
>> Not really because you assume our eyes are bounded. Any finite machine
>> running forever recurs but not infinite or universal one.
>>
>> Bruno
>
> Yes I assume my eyes are bounded... because they are, physically
> speaking they
> are...
Well, it could depend by what you mean by "i". And by seeing. Stathis
has also assumed in his reasoning that our number of neurons is
bounded, but a human can be defined in a more large sense which include
the wall on which he draws buffalos.
What is important is that we are extendible in principle, at least to
make sense of church's thesis and universal machine, and things like
"all OM".
>
> And if I understand you correctly, you are saying that we are universal
> machine (or we are part of it) so that we can't recurs...
I should have said that we don't *necessarily* recur.
(And then IF we don't recur, we cannot prove it. We always possibly
recur).
> But as I have
> showed, what I can see is finite (without taking into accound brain
> states
> which is more than 2 states for a neuron, 2 states or electrical
> states of
> the brains and not taking in account chemicals properties is not brain
> states)... what ever event a possible observer which could see all is
> finite... I take 100000x100000 resolution, taking an higher resolution
> will
> just reveal better and better detail, but we do not see infinite
> detail...
> (and I don't conceive my consciousness able to see/understand infinite
> detail). But if I read that an universal machine runing forever can't
> repeat,
> that means that the machine will "see" better details each time... but
> what
> does it means for us ? do you mean that we have to see better and
> better the
> world ? has we get asymptotically to an infinite age we should be
> aware of
> more details ?
Depending on what *you* mean by "I" you can consider it happens all the
time or not. "We see" more and more details from bacteria to ...
Hubble.
If you buy an artificial brain you still have the option of path toward
amnesia, or attempt to live a "long" life, seeing more and more
detailed but also, and mainly, grasping bigger view on the spectacle.
But the price is bigger problems like escaping (or not) black holes,
etc.
The interest of hypotheses like comp and variants, is not really that
it solves such questions, but it can help to formulate them more
clearly and it can help to give an idea how complex they are.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sun Jun 26 2005 - 09:17:07 PDT