On 9/21/2012 8:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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.
But a statement can be true, "Sherlock Holmes live on Baker Street." without implying any
existence.
Brent
--
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.
