On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:

> Dr. Clough, so observation by this Observer, entails creation? This all
> sort of runs along with Shrodingers (sp) Cats, and, and High Everetts' Many
> Worlds, and so forth. Lenny Susslind at Stanford postulated huge amounts of
> observers arising in the universe, which he called Boltzmann Brains. It's
> an insane concept-but I like it anyway.
>
>
> Jason, yes, many thinkers have seen what you have said in one manner or
> another. Yet, its not like I can write out a beautiful equation, throw the
> paper in the air, and as if wafts to ground, a wondrous new world
> emerges-so to speak. Dr. Clough's special Observer can do this, but not I.
> If you are suggesting that a simulation, complex enough, with enough
> computing power, and cycling time, is the same this as a Creation-I will
> give you no argument. Because from the viewpoint of one of the critters on
> Conway's screen, it is the world.  Your text also suggests the thinking of
> Stephen Wolfram who once wrote (paraphrasing) "Why search the skies for
> ETI's when we could make a computing system that could, by programing and
> algorithms' uncover all that they know."  This has always puzzled me, on
> the how, we can do this? It may have just been a very dry joke, by
> Wolfram-but it does sort of highlight your point about recursion, math,
> Turing, and so forth.
>

I think it is legitimate, and simulation may be the only viable method for
exploration.  Especially if you consider the computing power of a
Matrioshka brain ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain ).  It
would be able to simulate the 4 billion year history of all life on Earth
in less than a few years (likely hours).  Compare this to observation by
telescope: It would take billions of years of looking at a planet through a
telescope with an aperture that would need to be millions of miles across
just to get a few megapixels of resolution looking at an Earth-sized planet
1000 light years away.  Or instead of building the computer, you could
travel there and camp out (hopefully picking an interesting planet.
Information would dribble in so slowly into this solar-system sized brain
it would go bad from boredom.  On the other hand, if it used a fraction of
its computing power it could spend all of eternity exploring any part of
reality it could imagine, other worlds, physics of other possible
universes, new forms of life not possible in our universe, etc.

Surely right now looking through telescopes seems like the best way to
gather knowledge, but give computing power a few more decades of doubling
every year, and by the end of the century there will be AI's that have a
billion times the computing power of the human brain.  All the hard
problems humans struggle with in trying to figure out the laws of physics,
etc. will seem like child's play, and new sources of puzzles and realms of
exploration will be required.

Jason



>
> -Mitch
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
> To: Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 3:29 pm
> Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to
>> create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or
>> matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. I
>> understand that Max Tegmark is enthusiatic on the cosmos being
>> mathematical, as, is, Seth Lloyd, but can we create protons, or a stone
>> with a number, a do-while,  statement?
>>
>
>  Computers and simulation enable us to create reality.  In truth we are
> not creating anything, only exploring what was already there.
>
>  Think of any computer game, they are comparatively simple simulations
> and lead to new realities we can go to and explore. Likewise, the entire
> Earth, or Milkyway could be accessed by someone with sufficient computing
> power.  Or you could say they exist already as relations between numbers
> that exist in math.  For illustration, consider the recursive function that
> goes from binary number to the next in a way that is identical to John
> Conway's Game of Life.  Theis relation implies an infinite series
> of successive states starting from the initial number.  Starting with the
> right initial number, this GoL simulation could contain a Turing machine
> running the universal dovetailer.  It would execute all possible programs
> and all conscious observers are contained in that number relation (assuming
> computationalism), including you and me who believe in protons and
> electrons.
>
>  Jason
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 12:35 pm
>> Subject: Re: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
>>
>>
>>  On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>  Please allow my incipid observation. Rather then invoke non-material
>> monads, let us, for arguments sake, assume that thought is a neurochemical
>> phenomena, and that without this neurochemical phenomena, there is no
>> thought. Similarly, mathematics as a phenomena, doesn't exist without a
>> human primate, writing on the soil with a stick, marking clay or wax
>> tablets, ink on paper, or human fingers executing a computer program. All
>> material, from beginning to end. Is there any evidence, of the existence of
>> non-material things?
>>
>>
>>  Yes, the objectivity of arithmetic or theoretical computer science.
>>
>>  Are there evidences that matter has an ontological existence? (Besides
>> the retaively self-moving entity's extrapolation in a local neighborhood)
>>
>>  It seems to me there are more evidence that the physical has a
>> mathematical origin.
>>
>>  It is indeed a necessity in case we bet the brain/body/local universe
>> is Turing emulable.
>>
>>  Matter and energy are interesting, but not necessarily a primitive
>> notion. Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a
>> simple and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic).
>>
>>  Anyway, this makes comp testable, so we can test it.
>>
>>  Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
>> To: - Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
>> Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 6:44 am
>> Subject: ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)
>>
>>
>> *ROADMARKERS ON THE ROAD NOT TAKEN (LEIBNIZ VS MATERIALISM)*
>>
>>  *A.EXISTENCE*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Mental (Nonphysical) + Physical *
>> *MATERIALISM-- Physical, only in spacetime *
>>
>> **
>> *B. REALITY
>> LEIBNIZ-- Only mental is real*
>> *MATERIALISM- Only physical is real *
>>
>> *C. SPACETIME
>> LEIBNIZ Exists only around physical bodies *
>> *MATERIALISM The nonphysical is beyond spacetime, the physical is within
>> it.*
>>
>> *D. IDEAS *
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Exist mentally*
>> *MATERIALISM --Do not exist , since not phjysical
>>
>> E. MATHEMATICS
>> LEIBNIZ-- Only logic and numbers mentally exist.
>> MATERIALISM-- Does not exist
>>
>> F. PHYSICS *
>> *LEIBNIZ--Mentally exists as descriptions of particle behavior according
>> to God's Pre- `existing Harmony
>> MATERIALISM—Ill-defined. Physics seems to be embedded (?) in the
>> particles *
>>
>> *F. GOD*
>> *LEIBNIZ--Is the only active agent (doer and perceiver) in the
>> universe-- *
>> *and so is necessary for existence. *
>> *MATERIALISM-- Is a fairy tale.
>>
>> G. NOTHING*
>> *LEIBNIZ--- The space vacuum. The absence of a particle
>> MATERIALISM--Can exist everywhere *
>>
>> **
>> *H. HUMAN AFFAIRS*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Incorporates psychology and can be applied to sociology
>> MATERIALISM-- Seems to avoid the subject. *
>>
>> **
>> *I. PERCEPTION*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- The ultimate perceiver is God.*
>> *MATERIALISM-- Omits the ultimate perceiver since it cannot explain
>> self. *
>>
>> **
>> *J. SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTANCE *
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Unexplored by science or explored only to the extent that
>> God, spirit, souil nd mind are seen to be necessary nonphysical entities
>> necessary for existence. Endorsing eibniz is a career-buster.*
>> *MATERIALISM-- Enthusiastically accepted and utilized. It acts as a cult.
>> *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>> *K. QUANTUM MECHANICS, NONLOCAL OR OTHERWISE*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- All corporeal bodies share and partcipate in the space of
>> existence according*
>> *to their capabilities, which means that more dominant quanta dominate
>> the less dominant*
>> *and would seem to participagte in a wider range of differences. *
>> *MATERIALISM-- QM is not possible since only physical entities exist.*
>>
>> **
>> *L. PHYSICAL VS NONPHYSICAL*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- The physical is within spacetime, the nonphysical (the
>> spiritual or mental orld) is outside of spacetime. *
>> *MATERIALISM-- Only the physical exists. *
>>
>>
>> *M. THE PARANORMAL *
>> *LEIBNIZ-- The paranormal is normal, but based on the nonphysical world
>> outside of spacetime. *
>> *MATERIALISM-- Up front is always not to be taken seriously.*
>>
>> **
>> *N. COSMOLOGY--ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Every monad has an indestructable soul which has been here
>> from the creation of the universe, or else has been created or destroyed by
>> God . My personal view is that this would allow for creation of matter from
>> mind such as in the Big Bang”.*
>> *MATERIALISM-- The classic position is that the universe has always been,
>> *
>> *but there are modern scientific theories of the “Big Bang”.*
>>
>> **
>> *O. LIFE*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe is alive.*
>> *MATERIALISM-- There are vaious materialistic accounts of the formation
>> of life.*
>>
>> **
>> *P. DEATH*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Everything in the universe is alive. Each living things
>> “unfolds” from its soul*
>> *or monad as a seed unfolds into a living plant. At death, the rotting
>> body stays attached to its monad, just as in *
>> *Christianity we sleep after death until resurrected with a new body in
>> the Second Coming *
>> *MATERIALISM-- The termination of what is believed to be life.*
>>
>> **
>> *Q. DETERMINISM*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Every body in the universe moves according to a
>> “Pre-established Harmony *
>> *(PEH)”. In my personal view this allows for what might be called
>> “effective free choice”, meaning that only choices in accord with the PEH
>> are possible.*
>> *MATERIALISM-- The termination of what is believed to be life.*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>> *R. DIVINE INTERVENTION IN THE WORLD*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- No divine intervention is possible or needed, since during
>> the week of Creation, God drew up his Pre-established Harmony (the PEH) and
>> rested on the 7th day, while the universe plays out according to this
>> script without God's interventions. Since the PEH foresaw and acted
>> according to all events, good or bad, this would allow for prayer to work
>> or not work. Thus the PEH can be thought of as a divine musical composition
>> or all-knowing computer program running on its own. In a sense, the PEH is
>> God asleep. *
>> *MATERIALISM-- Since there is no God, there can be no divine
>> intervention.*
>>
>> **
>> *S. INTELLIGENCE*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- The ability to make choices autonomously, not by some
>> computer program.*
>> *Every body in the universe moves according to a “Pre-established
>> Harmony” (PEH) .*
>> *MATERIALISM-- Matter may be intelligent, but we do not know its
>> language.*
>> *There is something call “artificial intgelligence” used in computerbut
>> a computer, but*
>> *e termination of what is believed to be life.*
>>
>> **
>> *T. CONSCIOUNESS*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Internal perception (see above), requiring a subject (self)
>> and object.*
>> *MATERIALISM-- Seems to me to be impossible, since materialism has no
>> self*
>> *to perceive or be conscious. *
>>
>> **
>> *U. MIND-BODY PROBLEM*
>> *LEIBNIZ-- Since mind and body are both mental, there is no such
>> problem. *
>> *MATERIALISM-- Seems to me to be impossible, since materialism has no
>> self*
>> *to perceive or be conscious. *
>>
>> **
>> *V. THE FUNDAMENTAL REALITY*
>>
>>    *LEIBNIZ-- Mind and the subjective world*
>>
>> *MATERIALISM-- Matter and the objective world. *
>> *- Roger Clough*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/11/2013 *
>> *See my Leibniz site at*
>>  *http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough*<http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough>
>>  ____________________________________________________________________
>> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
>> leaving off. use again  www.dreammail.org
>> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>     --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to