Hi Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote:
>Dear Quentin et al, > > I keep reading this claim that "only the existence of the algorithm >itself is necessary" and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for >mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation >in terms of some Platonic Number, is sufficient to give a model of that can >be used to derive anything like the world of appearences that we have. > > Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain the physics and the objects. This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for the Ether for waves to propagate? The most up-to-date answer is that waves carry their own "physical substrate." They can be waves and/or particles. Similarly there should be equivalence between information and matter/energy. Thus a process or algorithm should have inherently within itself its own physical substrate. Since information is observer-dependent (Shannon) this issue brings us back to the observer. I think that eventually all observables will have to be traced back to the observer who is in fact at the nexus of the mind-body problem. George --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
