Greetings Pete,

> If not, then can you say what it is about the active process of
> flipping or laying down that "counts" as computation but does not count
> when the stack is a static block?
>

I suppose I'm ultimately in the "hard" info physics camp, in that the
pattern's the thing; given the 2ds and the binary content, then the stacks
would map to a time dimension I suppose; were they to be unstacked and
recorded we'd have a history (were they unstacked , some flipped then read..
revisionist history?)


> If you think the static block "counts" as the implementation of a
> universe, then I think you can go all the way to abstract Platonism.
> Because since the stack's just sitting there, why not knock it down?
> Or melt it into a big ball?  Or throw it into a black hole...the two
> SASes won't care (will they?)
>

No, in this scenario I see the unverse as a function of the coins (or
computer, or space-time, or matter energy and information). Toss a stack
into a black whole (whether of not we get it back via hawkings radiation)
and the information capacity of the universe is affected. But note here I
say "this scenario".

> So I think the anti-Platonist must answer why exactly the coins need to
> be actively flipped or laid down to "really" implement a Life universe
> -- and by extension, why any universe needs to be "actively"
> implemented.

Because it's not there? Kidding. To elaborate on my statement above. I
definitely see time, energy, matter.. as emergent phenomena of an underlying
informational  and probably discrete process. But they emerged from a
pattern(order? information? logos?) and that pattern was informed upon( the,
a, some?) "void" (noise, chaos, "the one"? "the one of many?").  Per my just
prior post, I may in fact now see the extra-universal "implementation" as
informational.  So am I not a Platonist (or not? or am?)

Reply via email to