On 17 Aug 2011, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/17/2011 10:36 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 16.08.2011 20:47 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/16/2011 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Yes, this is why in my first post, I said consider God's Turing
machine (free from our limitations). Then it is obvious that
with the appropriate tape, a physical system can be approximated
to any desired level of accuracy so long as it is predictable.
Colin said such models of physics or chemistry are impossible, so
I hope he elaborates on what makes these systems unpredictable.

I have to repeat that the current simulation technology just does
not scale. With it even God will not help. The only way that I
could imagine is that God's Turing machine is based on completely
different simulation technology (this however means that our
current knowledge of physical laws and/or numerics is wrong).

Scale doesn't matter at the level of theoretical possibility. Bruno's
UD is the most inefficient possible way to compute this universe -
but he only cares that it's possible. All universal Turing machines
are equivalent so it doesn't matter what God's is based on. Maybe you
just mean the world is not computable in the sense that it is
nomologically impossible to compute it faster than just letting it

I understand what you say. On the other hand however, it is still good to look at the current level of simulation technology, especially when people make predictions on what happens in the future (in other messages the possibility of brain simulation and talk about physico-chemical processes).

From such a viewpoint, even a level of one-cell simulation is not reachable in the foreseeable future. Hence, in my view, after the discussion about theoretical limits it would be good to look at the reality. It might probably help to think the assumptions over.

I would say that it is small practical things that force us to reconsider our conceptions.


I agree with that sentiment. That's why I often try to think of consciousness in terms of what it would mean to provide a Mars Rover with consciousness. According to Bruno the ones we've sent to Mars were already conscious, since their computers were capable of Lobian logic.

I don't remember having said this. I even doubt that Mars Rover is universal, although that might be serendipitously possible (universality is very cheap), in which case it would be as conscious as a human being under a high dose of salvia (a form of consciousness quite disconnected from terrestrial realities). But it is very probable that it is not Löbian. I don't see why they would have given the induction axioms to Mars Rover (the induction axioms is what gives the Löbian self-referential power).

But clearly they did not have human-like consciousness (or intelligence). I think it much more likely that we could make a Mars Rover with consciousness and intelligence somewhat similar to humans using von Neumann computers or artificial neural nets than by trying to actually simulate a brain.

I think consciousness might be attributed to the virgin (non programmed) universal machine, but such consciousness is really the basic consciousness of everyone, before the contingent differentiation on the histories. LUMs, on the contrary, have a self-consciousness, even when basically virgin: they makes a distinction between them and some possible independent or transcendental reality.

No doubt the truth is a bit far more subtle, if only because there are intermediate stage between UMs and LUMs.



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