On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.... > In the begining there was nothing (null), and so it was very dull. Change (logical-not) was the first thing to a occur. made things a tad more interesting. So more fun could be had Creation is a computational substrate, with a goal of increasing diversity and complexity of experience. I'm writing a book to explain it more thoroughly. > > 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? > meditation. can access the akashic records, they really explain nothing but also everything :-) ooo, a mystery to the uninitiated lol. > 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. > > there are plenty of "rules" like laws of nature. There is for instance the Golden Rule, it's quite important, and gets routinely rediscovered. > > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-6ef01b0b> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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
