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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at