On 30 Nov 2012, at 20:08, Jesse Mazer wrote:



On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com > 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 <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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 .

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 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.

Reply via email to