On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for > a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark > will eventually find himself in this computer >
Yes, in fact it may have already happened. >> That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and >> maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. >> > > >It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one > particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and > its execution exist within mathematics. > I'm pretty confident that such a program exists within mathematics, but I am far less confident that a computer to run it on also exists at that same level of reality; I'm not saying it doesn't, maybe it does, but I don't know it for a fact. With today's emphasis on software sometimes we forget that a program is useless without hardware to run it on. > For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after > the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is > also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular > value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the > emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark > and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and > sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. > For that you don't need to bring in Everett or Quantum Mechanics or virtual worlds or dovetailing or computers, all you need are the 19'th century ideas of Ludwig Boltzmann. There are a gargantuan number of ways the atoms in my 200 pound body could be organized, but there are not a infinite number, therefore if the universe is spatially infinite 10^1000 light years away (give or take a few hundred thousand million billion trillion) there can be no doubt that John Clark is typing a post to the Everything list about Boltzmann's idea. John K Clark > > >> >> > Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. >>> >> >> A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not >> obvious. >> > > Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we can > refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for the physics > that observers see. Everett's theory was a great confirmation, for without > it, conventional QM with collapse (and a single universe) would have ruled > it out. As it stands, there are several physical concepts that provide > support for the UD being a valid TOE: > > Quantum uncertainty > Non clonability of matter > Determinism in physical laws > Information as a fundamental "physical" quantity > (I think there is something I am forgetting, but Bruno can fill in the > gaps) > > >> >> > This is the "grand conclusion" you have been missing for all these >>> years. I don't think this was obvious to Og the caveman. >>> >> >> Nor is it obvious to John the non-caveman. >> > > Nice. > > Jason > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
