On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com<mailto:pier...@gmail.com>> wrote:I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct?I think you are confusing a bit pattern for a computation. A harddrive can contain any possible bit pattern that will fit on itsplatter, but this bit pattern won't contain consciousness.Conversely, if the computer is powered up and running the appropriateprogram, that program may be conscious. This is the differencebetween the UD, and the series of integers or the digits of Pi. TheUD executes all possible programs, the set of Integers is equivalentto all possible bit patterns.I think what you are saying is that somehow this computation produces more pattern and order than a program which simply generates all possible arrangements of bits. Why? If I were to select at random some algorithm from the set of all possible algorithms, it would be prettymuch noise almost all the time.I think you could say the program may be uninteresting, or not containa mind or minds.Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle? The idea thatobservers will always find themselves in places where they can exist.They perform the selection by virtue of their existence andobservation of their environment.The vast majority of programs may not contain observers, but those fewthat do will become environments for the minds they host.*Proving* it is noise is of course impossible, because meaning is a function of context. You've selected out "the program emulating the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky Way", but among all the other possible procedures will be a zillion more that perform this operation, but also add in various other quantities and computations that render the results useless from a physicist's point of view. There are certainly all kinds of amazing procedures and unfound discoveries lying deep in the UDA's repertoire of algorithms, but only when we intelligently derive an equation by some other means (measurements, theory, revision, testing etc) can we find out which ones are signal and which ones noise.We can ignore the computations which don't contain observers, and asfar as predicting your own future, we can ignore those that don'tcontain you.You also asked about why not execute them all in parallel. Everyprogram does exist in math independetly of the UD. I think the reasonBruno described the UD was that it was a simple single program hecould show exists in math. You also questioned whether the existenceof the UD is something really there or some mental construction ofours. If you think "17 is prime" is true independently of yourknowledge of it, then the statement "the UD does not halt" is alsotrue independently of your knowledge of it.Jason

Jason,

`I really would like to understand how it is that the truth`

`valuation of a proposition is not dependent on our knowledge of it can`

`be used to affirm the meaning of the referent of that proposition`

`independent of us? How does the sentence "17 is prime is a true`

`statement" confer implicit meaning to its referent?`

Onward! Stephen -- 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.