The question of why there is something rather than nothing has always been the ultimate embarrassment to me. In the last few years, I have come around to Max @tegmark's position: existence is quite possibly the default. Everything that is implementable is implemented.
-
-
Makes me wonder the nature of the substrate that manifests the simulated self as qualia. Why are the relations of perception/cognition instantiated in _some_ particular, arbitrary way, when the generic relations are all that matter for function.
-
There are not that many degrees of freedom in how the relations between features can be modeled, if you want to map all (perceived) physical things into regions within the same 3space, all somatic sensations to the same self, and you want metaphysics to be consistent.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yes I think this is what
@DavidDeutschOxf means when he says when he says that epistemology is substrate independent. Your experience is explained by that construct. But knowing the correlation doesn’t tell you why redness (or anything) is what that construct feels like. -
@DavidDeutschOxf‘ substrate independent information is transmitted because of “allowed “interactions “. You can see only things which are allowed by the laws of physics. “No feelings exist.” Just reality in the stone as well as in our brain. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
