Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:
> > You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem
> > simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest.
I agree with Jacques that trying to define a computer is ridiculous. But
if we must choose one, there is a way to pick the simplest:
No real computer at all.
Just the illusion of one is sufficient. In fact, for the same virtual
zero cost, we could have the illusion of all possible virtual
> What we need is something that is minimal (generates all
> configurations) AND computationally universal (capable of
> performing any computation)... thus generating ALL programs.
Let me elaborate on the use of the Zen non-computer. But this requires
the concept of first person... something that Marchal is in the process
of explaining... and which is not universally accepted in this list.....
Let's start with a Plenitude of all possible states. Some of those
states may happen to be logically connected AS IF they were sequentially
ordered computer states. No real links join those states... just virtual
links. It seems pretty obvious that whether a real computer follows
those links or a virtual one, is irrelevant. We could imagine the set of
all possible virtual computers generating the set of all possible
virtual links joining those states.
Are we, as observer, going to observe all those possible states linked
by all those virtual computers? Of course not!
Anthropic filtering restricts the set of states to those consistent with
the psyche of the observer.
The important thing is that they are linked from the point of view of
the first person observer in a manner consistent with the psyche of the
The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can
observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The
rest is first person emergent.