On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]
> wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]
> 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.
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, so we build machines that can tell
us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy
than we ever could.
It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are
already there. The problem is learning their results.
Jason
It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results".
This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time
since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.
For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic
computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very
platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do
anything extra to get the result. You are the result.
Jason
Jason,
That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark
upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the
kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things
don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite
connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion
to be explained!
Does 38 have any factors?
Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps?
Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible
answer. Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it,
implement it or think it. They would be either true or false even if
nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it.
If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could
even say the question "Does program xyz contain conscious entities?"
is a mathematical question. If it is true, then there exist conscious
entities.
Your requirement that there be some "real" implementation for
computation leads to an infinite regress. What "real" computer is our
universe running on?
Jason
--
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
