I've read over all the responses here. Thanks everybody. One basic issue I have with the computer is this. When we say the word "computer" it conjures up in my mind some basic issues.
In the first place, we have to disentangle what is doing the *computing*from what is *computed*. Granted a computer is always supposed to "do" something and have a ~reason~ for doing what it is doing. In looking over that article that I originally posted, it seems that the universe is a projection, at least in the minds of the authors, that is the universe is result of I/O, of something else which is doing the computing. So "standing behind" the universe, under this conception, is that universe computer which is doing the computing of the universe proper. But if we say casually, "Oh the universe is a computer" it is not clear what part of that means some computations, what is the result of the computations, or really if there is a difference, or what.... I have a feeling that sort of conflated thinking is behind a lot of the discourse here although I don't believe I have any grasp on the problem either. I'm not sure that when we say "the universe is a computer" which aspect we are talking about, what we would associate with input/output, what it is that is doing the computation, and such matters. Or simply put if the universe is a computer, if what we experience is the result of the computing, not then the actual compute in itself, then how do we access the equivalent of the code running it? If it is not a scheme like this then we shouldn't call the universe a computer (that is a device with I/O, code, a Turing tape, etc).... Philosophy for a long time as made an issue of metaphysics, of course, first principles that seem to be the IF/Then rules for reality-- or the rough equivalent of the rules in the rule based used by the universe-computer . But all of this kind of gets back to the ageold universal and particular argument. All we have at hand is instances and particulars to work with, and have to induce the rules and laws that seem to have led to it. I guess from reading the conjectures of the physicists they think that at the quantum level the "rules" (if you will) could be discovered. Mike Tintner: You are kind of hard on logic. It has a place even if it doesn't do everything Ben: Thanks for the links. I need to study more on the quantum level issues having at present only a feeble grasp others: thanks On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:05 AM, John G. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > Is all computation really just a virtualization of some physical process. > > In your mind you imagine Euler's equation. That is really an image generated > from the workings of bio-electrochemical activity. Your wetware experiences > and reacts to a pattern meme, my mention of Euler's equation. It is just a > physical copy of some pattern existing in the universe. These mathematics > patterns happen to have building blocks and those are reflections ultimately > mappable to some physical foundation of existence. > > There are correspondences between computations of intelligence and physics > computation like thermodynamics and energy because they are the same thing. > > The universe is computation. Representation is re-hosted virtualization. You > could say perhaps that all pattern is multi-permutated representation ejecta > from a core generator of quantum clock-tick? > > John > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
