@The_Lagrangian anything that can give rise to computation in its interactions (how many layers can we fit below quarks?)
Conversation
Replying to
I am here using matter in a generalized sense to refer to any excitations of quantum fields
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian ah yes that should about include everything within this universe
I'm fond of the idea that [epistemic status: experimental]
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian computation steps do not need to "happen" physically but Exist as mathematical relations in the platonic realm
2
1
Replying to
yeah I used to be a strong Tegmarkian as well but I'm less on that side nowadays space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/m
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian Why the shift? I was definitely Not Okay for a while after you explained Tegmarkian universes way back when
1
2
Replying to
I am more concerned nowadays on focusing only on models of the world that explain future experience
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian Dust and Boltzmann brains are intensely vertigo-inducing for me, and this approach doesn't seem to solve it
1
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian yes, that would've been the other branch of the thread
Q: are two identical uploads the *same* person?
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian Fiction's more efficient at exploring these questions than philosophy: Egan gave me more tools than Tegmark
1
2
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian reason I ask is: under dust and sameness, these boltzmann brains are not as vertigo inducing at all
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian your copies are just the same mind running in other places, not even relevant to your current experience
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian I accept they're not relevant to my current experience, but they still seem to matter
1
Show replies