Well little problem in gmail sorry.

So I do it again /o\

Sorry I wanted to write "it does *add* nothing".

Level 0 is not part of the computation. And I still don't see how you can
relate physically running a program on a computer, and running it on an
abaccus, with a pen and a sheet of paper, in my mind. The only relation is
the abstract computation.

Quentin



2009/9/22 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>

> Sorry I wanted to write "it does *add* nothing".
>
> Level 0 is not part of the computation. And I still don't see how you can
> relate physically running a program on a computer, a
>
>
>
> 2009/9/22 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>
>
> 2009/9/22 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep, 21:29, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > 2009/9/22 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > On 1 Sep, 18:14, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > 2009/9/1 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>:
>>> >
>>> > > > The level "0" has nothing that can be detected/tested if CTM is
>>> true
>>> > > > by a computational observer (us if CTM is true).
>>> >
>>> > > If a level 0 is part of the standard package of materialism,
>>> > > it is testable because "small world" materialism makes different
>>> > > predictions about
>>> > > what will be observed, particularly WRs, than mathematical
>>> > > many-worlds. To put it another way., the theories are as
>>> > > testable as each other.
>>> >
>>> > No because computational observer has *no* access to any external
>>> thing. If
>>> > you are computational in essence I can run you and give you any input I
>>> want
>>> > and you can't rely on your measure to assert anything.
>>>
>>> It is very unlikely I would find myself in such a  contrived scenario,
>>> when
>>> there are many other corners of Platonia I could land in.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but you can't have access to level 0 if you are computational, no
>> matter what you say, it doesn't play a role.
>>
>> If it does had nothing to the computation (and it does had nothing), I see
>> no reason to postulate one... to call it propertyless or whatever, it is
>> useless.
>>
>>
>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to