On 30 Nov 2012, at 20:08, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]
> wrote:
On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:32:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Richard,
>
>
> On 28 Nov 2012, at 12:18, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>> Does any or all forms of energy come from arithmetic?
>
>
>
> Yes. All forms (in the sense of stable appearances) have to come
from
> arithmetic if comp is true and my reasoning correct.
>
> Bruno
>
Since energy is what makes things happen
then comp makes everything happen in Everett's universe.
Richard
If comp made things happen then we could simulate petroleum
production in a program and solve the world's energy problem.
Instead, we find that in all real implementations of computing, comp
invariably consumes net energy. Why would that be? Does comp allow
anti-comp? Maybe we could run our computers backwards and get some
kilowatt hours back.
Craig
Seems like this argument is confusing levels of simulations. If you
have one simulated world on a computer which is complex enough to
have its own simulated oil production, as well as simulated physical
computers, then those computers could be used to simulate another
world, a simulation-within-the-simulation. But obviously having
petroleum production in the simulation-within-the-simulation is not
going to provide any energy to the original simulated world, despite
the fact that they are both computer simulations. So, the fact that
we cannot get energy from simulations of oil production, and don't
get wet from simulations of rainstorms and such, is no argument
against the idea that our own universe might just be a computational
system.
I agree with your point, as a valid rebuttal of Craig, but with comp
we definitely know that the universe is not a computational system a
priori, as the physical reality supervene on the first person plural
indeterminacy which is a sum on all computations, and this is not a
priori computable. Indeed that is why we have to hunt the white rabbit
away.
Digital physics implies comp, and comp implies the negation (a priori)
of digital physics, and this makes digital physics inconsistent (with
or without comp).
Bruno
Jesse
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
