On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
<whatsons...@gmail.com <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> 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.
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.
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.
You are missing the point. There is the Truth and there is the
ability to know of it. The former is immaterial, independent of any one
of us. The latter is physical, we must work to have 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
We have to be able to communicate...
Your requirement that there be some "real" implementation for
computation leads to an infinite regress. What "real" computer is our
universe running on?
The underlying Quantum's unitary transformation.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
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