On 9/21/2012 8:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net <mailto: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 <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 
        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 
        independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that 
        matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty 
        with our minds should also give us access to the results of the 

    Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access the 

        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 
        to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of 

    We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the 
    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 
    that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and 
    than we ever could.

    It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already 
     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 
    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.

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.

But a statement can be true, "Sherlock Holmes live on Baker Street." without implying any existence.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to