Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If you disagree, please tell me why.
> I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
> justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
> something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this is
> speculative, as nobody has found anything not Turing emulable in nature.
You say this often, Bruno, yet I have never seen an emulation of any living
system that functions the same as the original.
The default position is that it is not emulable. We have no a priori reason
to assume we can substitute one thing with another thing of an entirely
different class. We have no more reason to assume that we can substitute a
brain with an emulation of a brain than we have that we can substitute a
building with a drawing of a building - even if it is so accurate that the
illusion of it being a building is perfect at first glance. You still can't
live in a drawing.
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Measurements just can't yield infinity.
It is like the natural numbers. You can't see that there are infinitely many
of them by using examples. You just have to realize it is inherent to
natural numbers that there's always another one (eg the successor).
In the same way, nature can only be seen to be infinite by realizing it is
an inherent property of it. There simply is no such thing as complete
finitiness. No thing in nature has any absolute boundary seperating it from
space, and there is no end to space - the notion of an end of space itself
seems to be empty.
We approach the limits of science here, as we leave the realm of the
quantifiable and objectifiable, so frankly your statement just seems like
scientism to me.
>From a mystical perspective (which can provide a useful fundament for
science), it can be quite self-evident that everything that exists is
infinite (even the finite is just a form of the infinite).
A more pratical question would be "how / in which form does infinity express
in nature?". Of course this is an unlimited question, but I see some aspects
of nature that can't be framed in terms of something finite.
First uncertainty / indeterminateness. It might be that nature is inherently
indeterminate (principle like heisenbergs uncertainty relation suggest it
from a scientific perspective) and thus can't be captured by any particular
description. So it is not emulable, because emulability rests on the premise
that what is emulated can be precisely captured (otherwise we have no way of
telling the computer what to do).
Secondly entaglement. If all of existence is entangled and it is infinite in
scope then everything that exists has an aspect of infiniteness (because you
can't make sense of it apart from the rest of existence). Even tiny changes
in very small systems might me non-locally magnified to an abitrary degree
in other things/realms. This means that entanglement can't be truly
simulated, because every simulation would be incomplete (because the state
of the system depends on infinitely many other things, which we can't ALL
simulate) and thus critically wrong at the right level.
It might be possible to simulate the behaviour of the system outwardly, but
this would be only superficial since the system would be (relatively) cut
off from the transcendental realm that connects it to the rest of existence.
For example if someone's brain is substituted he may behave similarily to
the original (though I think this would be quite superficial), but he won't
be connected to the universal field of experiencing in the same way -
because at some level his emulation is only approximate which may not matter
much on earth, but will matter in "heaven" or "the beyond" (which is what
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at