On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
>> then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using
>> only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use
>> millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition,
>> and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?
>> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be
>> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute
>> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that
>> shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in
>> empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the
> Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the
Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When
we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of
space. We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness.
>> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be
>> functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced
>> to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of
> We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the
> future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get
> the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this,
Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in
Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now?
> so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with
> greater speed and accuracy than we ever could.
Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed?
> It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already
> there. The problem is learning their results.
The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do
anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not
computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't
thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw.
If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to
exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any
function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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