2012/10/17 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
> On 10/17/2012 4:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> Life may support mathematics.
> Hi Alberto,
> OK, we can think of Life, in a very abstract sense, as the generator
> of variety and pattern, so that might work. This makes Life = God!
> Life is a computation devoted to making guesses about the future in order
>> to self preserve .
> I would say that if the above stipulation is true, then this claim
> applies to the individual "life forms" and not Life (the Form), no?
> This is only possible in a world where natural computers are possible:
> What other kind of computers could there be? Are we not part of the
> natural world, Reality and thus Nature and thus what we make is "natural
> computers"? I do not understand the word "artificial", I must tell you, it
> seems oxymoronic! Why the Man v nature dichotomy? This seems a vestige of
> the doctrine of "The Fall" within Abrahamic religions. ...
> Natural computers are the living beings, that maintain homeostasis
(internal entropy) . artificial computers simply help to maintain the
entropy/homeostasis of the social being from which we are a part. (by
driving a robotic factory that produce car pieces for example). So they are
a very concrete part of a concrete natural computer.
A company can be a living being considered at some level. Therefore it is
a natural computer.
A PC in the company is a part of it.
> in a world where the phisical laws have a mathematical nature.
> Kinda redundant, no? If the physical laws are not capable of being
> represented by mathematics, what would they be? Patternless chaos in
> A bit redundant, yes. But I can imagine some weird laws. In fact,
computability impose restrictions to the macroscopical laws: they have to
be continuous, smooth, irreversible (increase entropy) and local (distant
objects must affect less to predictions than nearest ones).
> Instead of comp creating a mathematical-phisical reality, is the
>> mathematical reality what creates the computations in which we live.
> Those two semi-sentences seem equivalent to me...
> Not really, from my point of view, natural computers are made of or
ordinary matter, which has a mathematical nature. This does not pressupose
a computational nature of reality, but a mathematical one But this
mathematical nature is a prerequisite for computations, some of which are
minds. Bruno postulate that the mind is a product of computations and
reality a product of the mind therefore computation is at the root of
everithing. I say that computation mind and math are mutually necessary
> So all kind of arbitrary universes may exist, but only (some)
>> mathematical ones can harbour self preserving computations, that is,
> Sure, all universes that have patterns that repeat more than once. But
> do we even need to stipulate universes that don't contain observers? Or are
> you considering only anthropomorphic observers: observers that can create
> elaborate narratives and/or even confabulations to each other?
> Here a definition of existence is necessary. I don´t know why people take
for granted that existence is a predefined world. The definition of
existence is at the root of everything
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at