5 ms·
This was an unexpectedly interesting talk, considering that from the framing I expected it to consist of essentially "Penrose, everyone thinks the Godelian thin
by maxander 10y ago
This was an unexpectedly interesting talk, considering that from the framing I expected it to consist of essentially "Penrose, everyone thinks the Godelian thing is stupid, please just stop." Instead we got a theory (very theoretical, but still interesting) relating consciousness to the cosmological boundaries of the universe.
If only I understood it! Does anyone else know how to interpret the sentence "in order for you to be unpredictable and unclonable, someone else’s ignorance of your causal antecedents would have to extend all the way back to ignorance about the initial state of the universe"? That and the following couple of paragraphs seem to establish something really interesting, but I haven't been able to follow it.
- di4na 10y agoThe idea seems quite simple. If you want to be able to tell that you can't decide what the person is doing, you need to lack something about his previous state. Which means that even if you know everything that happened between the initial state of the universe and now, you still can't predict that person decision. So you would have to ignore some things about the whole initial state of the universe. Because the only possible things that can explain you not being able to predict that person are : 1) The decision is completely non causal... Which destroy a lot of things, because a non causal decision having impact would destroy the chain of causality. 2) Or! There is something in the initial state of the universe that you can't know. Hence the person acts are unpredictable but still causal.