On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:17, Andrew Soltau wrote:

On 07/02/11 15:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Chalmers defines a 'Computational Hypothesis'

You might attribute this to Putnam or Fodor, or many others, including Galouye. That's CTM. I argue that the computationalist hypothesis is already in the "King Milinda" text, which is a greec-hinduist text from before JC. You can see CTM as an ancestor of the more precise modern comp (TC + yes doctor). The "yes doctor" is a belief in a level of description, where CTM believes implicitlt that we know the level (neuron level, for example). But as Colin explains we might take into account the EM fields. I argue that we have to take into account the glial cells (100 time more numerous than the neurons). No problem with comp, the level might be as low as the 101000 rational cut of the heisenberg matrix of the milky way at the dimension of the superstrings.

The Computational Hypothesis says that "physics as we know it is not the fundamental
level of reality."

Give me the reference.

(first google hit for Chalmers Computational Hypothesis)

OK, I know that article. I will not explain why I find it rather unfair in the references, it would involve other people, and no one is really interested in priority issue. The paper is interesting, and makes good points. Yet it still misses the point that I am trying to explain to you (and other people on this list). We will come back on this.

I will insist on this, though: you cannot quote a reference without explaining the context:

The statement just before the statement you quoted, i.e.: "the Computational Hypothesis says that 'physics as we know it is not the fundamental level of reality'." looks like the consequence of comp. That's was astonishing for me and that's why I asked you the reference. But in fact, in Chalmers paper, it is preceded by "The Computational Hypothesis says: Microphysical processes throughout space-time are constituted by underlying computational processes." So, what Chalmers call "The computational hypothesis" is what is often called "digital physics". It is not the same thing. A priori the computational hypothesis is incompatible with "digital physics". Chalmers is a bit ambiguous though, due to the 'computational process' wording". In my work it is a result that IF I am a machine, then physics is a (a priori non computable) sum on infinities of computation, so there are no "underlying computational processes", except in some extended sense of "underlying".

There is a widespread confusion between digital physics, and the comp hyp. in cognitive science. Digital physics see the world as a computation, comp assumes only that "I" is Turing emulable, in the 3- person sense. Digital physics implies comp, but comp does not imply digital physics, and imply the negation of digital physics (comp might be coherent with some notion of "super-digital" physics).



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to