COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on
computations. But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined,
namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in
terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of
+,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What
are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural
number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no
successor, successor remains undefined.
But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything
derived from it can mean anything. One might argue that even though 0 and
successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific
meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something,
which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE, it is
just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean anything (the
absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there is "one
more" of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what is one
more of the "absence of something" (which could mean anything).
So even if we assume that COMP is correct, it is essentially empty, because
it's very foundation is undefined. Everything derived from it also is
undefined, that is, it is totally open to interpretation. We can just name
the "undefinedness" of 0 as "matter" or "consciousness", and there we have
the very same mystery we wanted to explain. Every computation could manifest
itself in arbitrary ways... COMP itself says that actual 1-experience is
related to an "infinity" of computations. That's even worse, so we have an
infinity of undefined computations. Every computation (or infinite
computations) can correspond to every (or none) experience, that is,
ultimately COMP says nothing about experience. If it would, it had to give a
mapping of computation (/infinite computations) to experiences... But since
experience is ultimately not divisible in chunks of concrete, seperate
experiences, this attempt is bound to fail.
The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought construct
which essentially reveals its own emptiness. What can COMP possibly mean?
For it to have any use we have to make a bet grounded on pure faith... So we
could just as well believe in God, or - better -just take the stance of
observing whatever happens! Maybe that we have to bet on an substitution
level for COMP to have any meaning, and our inability to know any
substitution level should lead us to conclude that there probably is no
substitution level, or it is undefined, which would just make sense, given
that apparently COMP is undefined in its very foundations.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at