RE: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:50:08 -0700

Bruno writes

> On 06 Sep 2005, at 04:49, Lee Corbin wrote:


     Why, whyever for? Isn't it true that most people don't object to their
     *physical* destruction because they realize that they'll continue to
     live on as abstract machines? For sure, those who believe fully in
     the Universal Distribution don't really care if they get hit by a truck,
     because after all, their computation will continue anyway---it will even
     continue in some other physical universe according to the QTI (Quantum
     Theory of Immortality).

Yes, but of course, as you know, I had given in to the impulse to
wax sarcastic. I do believe that any theory that doesn't say that
it's a bad thing to die (forget about extensive hospital stays!)
is a useless theory. So replace "being hit by a truck" by "being
next to a 20 megaton H-bomb when it detonates".

> Strictly speaking the hitting by a truck is more frightful for a computationalist.
> Because the question is not "will I survive"? But "will I suffer".
> And comp like QM gives evidence that we only survive in normal worlds,
> i.e. "non Harry Potter like -universe". In those normal worlds: you
> survive the truck but with a high probability of being wounded.
> Making that comp (or even just QM) is everything but wishful thinking.

Not sure I entirely understand, but it seems to me that we survive in
"Harry potter like universes", but only get very little runtime there
(i.e. have very low measure in those).

Lee
Received on Wed Sep 07 2005 - 00:49:22 PDT