On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
<whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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
computations.
Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to
access the results.
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 silicon?
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?
Hi Craig,
We are! We just don't "feel" it...
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?
What is the speed of light? Same question!
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?
Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will
corrupt Olympia.
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
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.
