On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>  On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>   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>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>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.
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
>     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 accept platonism then why do you always give Bruno trouble over
there needing to be a physical universe in which to run the UD?


>
>
>  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.
>
>
>     We have to be able to communicate...
>
>
This isn't hard to explain.  Some programs contain multiple interacting
entities.


>
>
>  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.
>
>
>
>  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 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to