On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing
universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum
already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need
three bodies at least).
What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding
enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum.
It would not be Turing universal.
How so? What is the proof? Craig is allowing for N, + and *. So why
> 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
handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.
Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum
Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic.
I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we
think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does
through the brain.
Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and
multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on
lambda terms, etc.
What do Integers represent? Are they just primitive "objects" with
I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of
memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the
Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to
your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a
persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the
self-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
That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the
rotating planet, revolving sun, etc.
So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation
with 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't
understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on
matter or space?)
By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the "material
hypostases". Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the
reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below
our substitution level.
What determines the "substitution level"?
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