On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> On 9/20/2012 11:02 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 computations.
> > 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?
> > Craig
> Hey Craig,
> What do you think physical computers actually are? "universal
> machines using only empty space". But Nature hates a vacuum...
Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at