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.