I have no knowledge about the Ads/CFT, aim at the computability:

In particular, the problem beyond BQP has declared in the part of the straight

matter, and the comment #148 takes NP(C), PSPACE(C), even halting function

as examples, Could we define the upperbounded hardness for the problems

solves by the Alice in simulation? Reaching the higher arithmetic hierarchy? ]]>

> “I’m pretty sure a CFT defined on a Minkowski spacetime will be hyperbolic”

Nope. IIRC, Penrose’ compactification adds a light cone at infinity. If so, the signature on the infinity is “more like 0+++ than ‒+++.

My initial impression was that the purpose of “starting with AdS” was to get the infinity conformally-Euclidean “instead”. However, reading more, it seems that the infinity of AdS is in fact conformally-Minkowsky (although I found my skills with working with signature ‒‒++ rather rusty; brain fog does not help…).

If so, my objection about hyperbolicity-vs.-ellipticity is completely void indeed!

> “I agree that the difficulty of convincing people that you have qualia is analogous to the difficulty of deciphering; but the issue in this case is that there will be multiple plaintexts [qualia-states] for any given cyphertext [physical state], so deciphering actually is impossible here, unlike in the FHE case.”

There are many cryptographic protocols which are not 1-to-1. Some of them may be used for “convincing people” (like zero-knowledge proofs).

Anyway, I cannot substantiate it any more: there is a “guts feeling” that “convincing people that I had qualia” **HAS** some similarity with crypto-problems — but nothing more convincing that this!

⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜

And: I cannot decipher what you write about “qualia-inversion” and afterwards.

]]>I’m pretty sure a CFT defined on a Minkowski spacetime will be hyperbolic (the Laplace equation becomes the wave equation). Otherwise, it wouldn’t be preserved under Lorentz transforms, which are conformal.

#184:

After thinking about it some more, I agree that the difficulty of convincing people that you have qualia is analogous to the difficulty of deciphering; but the issue in this case is that there will be multiple plaintexts [qualia-states] for any given cyphertext [physical state], so deciphering actually is impossible here, unlike in the FHE case.

Actually, I’m thinking of qualia-inversion here, not existence of qualia. The “cipher” forces us to assume that Alice has qualia, even if it is not actually true.

]]>Then this makes your objection into a confirmation if what I wrote, does not it? There are three kinds of difficulties

• sending info out of a black hole;

• sending info out of a FHE;

• convincing somebody I had a qualia.

There are strong analogies between them.

(Sorry, I cannot follow your “non-existent experiences not existing” argument. Neither do I know why you replaced “P-zombie” by “imposter”.)

]]>When you say “evolution”, do you mean “evolution w.r.t. CFT equations”? If so, this can make SOME sense indeed!

On the other hand, CFT equations are (if I understand correct) “glorified analogues” of the Laplace equation. Then they are elliptic, not hyperbolic, so the word “evolution” makes very different sense for them. Are you sure that you want to use this particular sense?!

(Meanwhile, I’m kind of lost now, and cannot understand whether this covers the initial “evolution” comments made above.)

]]>Yes it can; each sheet of the foliation corresponds to the restrictions of the functions to that sheet. Evolution of the state on sheet x to the state on sheet y corresponds to evolution of the state on restrictions to y to the state on restrictions to x. So we have an evolution on the sheaf of the functions, as required.

And I guess I should have written “the difficulty of sending information out of the black hole” rather than “…impossibility…”.

]]>