4 ms·

> "Physical reality" is just your way brain's way of interpreting the mathematical rules that constitute our existence You state this as though it is a fact, b

> "Physical reality" is just your way brain's way of interpreting the mathematical rules that constitute our existence You state this as though it is a fact, but really this is the main point of disagreement. You cannot take this as given.

Koshkin 5y ago
But isn't philosophy (and religion) nothing but disagreement? (If philosophers agreed with each other, we'd very few philosophy books; in contrast, despite the fact that there are many, many mathematics books, those are pretty much all saying the same things.)
jbotz 5y ago
Heh... and neither can you take it as a given that physical objects outside of your skull have a more substantial existence than mathematical ones. Let's do a simple thought experiment... Do you believe that GAI is possible on conventional computers? If you do, then you must believe that a mind not significantly different from yours can exist inside a particular configuration of Conway's Game of Life (since Turing machines exist in GoL). But GoL is purely mathematical, so the mind-in-GoL is composed of, and senses and interacts with, objects "external" to it which are purely mathematical. But... 1) such objects would seem "physical" to the mind-in-GoL, and 2) both mind-in-GoL and its entire reality are fully deterministic and their existence is thus entirely independent of them ever being "simulated" (or instantiated) on an "actual" computing device. If they can exist, they can be said to actually exist, regardless of any external (to them) observer observing them. One of us running such a GoL configuration on one of our computers is just a way for us to create a window into that existence, not to "bring it into being". In short, if you believe that GAI is possible and that your physical reality is posited within an essentially deterministic Universe (and here it does not matter much how you resolve the quantum dilemma), then there is no reason to give physical objects a privileged position over mathematical ones. In other words, your position is based on nothing but "quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo", an unjustifiable faith that your existence is special.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  > But GoL is purely mathematical Is it though? Humans play GoL on computers made out of matter, think about GoL using brains made out of matter, and learn or communicate about GoL using artifacts made of matter. We can port GoL to various devices, so it seems that the essentials of GoL are not tied to a particular physical substrate. But then again, these are only approximations to GoL in that storage, etc. is limited. Anytime we actually run GoL, we're doing it in some embodied form. GoL doesn't play itself in some non-material plane. I think we get in trouble with these sweeping thought experiments and extrapolations. I might agree in principle that a mind like mine could exist in GoL, but it could turn out that to implement it would take some enormous combinatorial number multiple of universes. Then does it exist in a form that could operate, or only in a form that I can sketch out to others without understanding or giving any details? We really need to be careful about 1, 2, ..., infinity style arguments. They're second-nature to mathematicians, but the history of mathematics is full of cases where we had to clean up the mess left over after inviting infinity to the party. EDIT> "2) both mind-in-GoL and its entire reality are fully deterministic and their existence is thus entirely independent of them ever being "simulated" (or instantiated) on an "actual" computing device. If they can exist, they can be said to actually exist" How is this not just restating the same unsupported argument? Now we'll just have to debate what "exist" means, which is more or less where we started. EDIT 2> This is what I mean by keeping philosophers employed. Instead of making progress and deepening our understanding, we just end up debating and then agreeing-to-disagree on what word X means, and what it means to mean, and whether meaning can be said to exist, and ..., and ..., recursion

Koshkin 5y ago

But isn't philosophy (and religion) nothing but disagreement? (If philosophers agreed with each other, we'd very few philosophy books; in contrast, despite the fact that there are many, many mathematics books, those are pretty much all saying the same things.)

jbotz 5y ago

Heh... and neither can you take it as a given that physical objects outside of your skull have a more substantial existence than mathematical ones. Let's do a simple thought experiment... Do you believe that GAI is possible on conventional computers? If you do, then you must believe that a mind not significantly different from yours can exist inside a particular configuration of Conway's Game of Life (since Turing machines exist in GoL). But GoL is purely mathematical, so the mind-in-GoL is composed of, and senses and interacts with, objects "external" to it which are purely mathematical. But... 1) such objects would seem "physical" to the mind-in-GoL, and 2) both mind-in-GoL and its entire reality are fully deterministic and their existence is thus entirely independent of them ever being "simulated" (or instantiated) on an "actual" computing device. If they can exist, they can be said to actually exist, regardless of any external (to them) observer observing them. One of us running such a GoL configuration on one of our computers is just a way for us to create a window into that existence, not to "bring it into being". In short, if you believe that GAI is possible and that your physical reality is posited within an essentially deterministic Universe (and here it does not matter much how you resolve the quantum dilemma), then there is no reason to give physical objects a privileged position over mathematical ones. In other words, your position is based on nothing but "quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo", an unjustifiable faith that your existence is special.

JabavuAdams 5y ago
> But GoL is purely mathematical Is it though? Humans play GoL on computers made out of matter, think about GoL using brains made out of matter, and learn or communicate about GoL using artifacts made of matter. We can port GoL to various devices, so it seems that the essentials of GoL are not tied to a particular physical substrate. But then again, these are only approximations to GoL in that storage, etc. is limited. Anytime we actually run GoL, we're doing it in some embodied form. GoL doesn't play itself in some non-material plane. I think we get in trouble with these sweeping thought experiments and extrapolations. I might agree in principle that a mind like mine could exist in GoL, but it could turn out that to implement it would take some enormous combinatorial number multiple of universes. Then does it exist in a form that could operate, or only in a form that I can sketch out to others without understanding or giving any details? We really need to be careful about 1, 2, ..., infinity style arguments. They're second-nature to mathematicians, but the history of mathematics is full of cases where we had to clean up the mess left over after inviting infinity to the party. EDIT> "2) both mind-in-GoL and its entire reality are fully deterministic and their existence is thus entirely independent of them ever being "simulated" (or instantiated) on an "actual" computing device. If they can exist, they can be said to actually exist" How is this not just restating the same unsupported argument? Now we'll just have to debate what "exist" means, which is more or less where we started. EDIT 2> This is what I mean by keeping philosophers employed. Instead of making progress and deepening our understanding, we just end up debating and then agreeing-to-disagree on what word X means, and what it means to mean, and whether meaning can be said to exist, and ..., and ..., recursion