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.


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 

Reply via email to