On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

## Advertising

On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, 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? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least).What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and addingenumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum.It would not be Turing universal.

Dear Bruno,

`How so? What is the proof? Craig is allowing for N, + and *. So why`

`not?`

> 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? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic.I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what wethink about should be able to run just as easily in space as it doesthrough the brain.Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition andmultiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction onlambda terms, etc.

`What do Integers represent? Are they just primitive "objects" with`

`"inherent" properties?`

I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch ofmemories there and then come back to them later just be occupying thesame space.Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back toyour memory only if the measure on computations makes such apersistence possible. This needs to be justified with theself-reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*.

`You lost us ... "Eyes glaze over" No explanation is being offered`

`as to how the measure comes to be. I am asking you about the measure.`

`Why do you avoid my questions? I will not stop until you answer me`

`coherently!`

That's if we define space as relative to my house and not therotating planet, revolving sun, etc.So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computationwith no resources whatsoever besides space,No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp.

`So all "spaces" are physical? What about a Hilbert space? Is it not`

`a mathematical object?`

provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don'tunderstand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running onmatter or space?)By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the "materialhypostases". Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of thereason why destructive interference of the computations occurs belowour substitution level.

What determines the "substitution level"? -- 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.