# Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

`On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:`
```
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013  Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> 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.
>

You agree that the 8th Fibonacci number is 21, and that the 9th is 34,
right? And that the Nth Fibonacci number has some value F_n is some
mathematical fact, which is not dependent on John Clark or Jason Resch,
right?

If so, then the relation Fib(n) + Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2) is a recursive
function whose values exist as pure consequence of arithmetical truth. But
there are other recursive functions.  Some define John Conway's Game of
Life. Some of these Game of Life instances contain Turing machines, and a
rarer few contain Turing machines executing the universal dovetailer.

It is no less of a mathematical fact that the Nth number defined by this
recursive Game of Life function has some value G_n, than it is that the Nth
Fibonacci number has some value F_n.  But now consider a Game of Life
progression which contains evolved, and self-aware substructures.  From
their view they exist in a real world.  If you say they are not conscious
because they are only made of mathematical relations, then you are
admitting philosophical zombies exist.

Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if
they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy
courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these
functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in
pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are
conscious.  Otherwise, your theory on consciousness is supposing some kind
of magic potential for consciousness which is found only in strings,
electrons, carbon atoms, or something along those lines.

If it is a true statement that the evolution of some recursive function in
arithmetic contains patterns that behave and act as if they are conscious,
what reason is there to doubt that they are conscious? True, there is no
physical computer running the program to show us their evolution, but using
a computer to attempt to factor a prime number and see it fail is not what
makes a number prime.  These arithmetical truths exists independently of
our verification of them via simulation on physical computers.

>
> > 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.
>
>
>

You need to assume much more to get to Boltzmann's idea: a whole physical
universes, quantum vacuum, atoms, etc.  For the UDA, you need only assume
the ontology of the natural numbers. This is an implicit assumption in
nearly all scientific theories, and is therefore a rather modest proposal.
It is also much simpler to justify existence through seeing the necessity
of mathematical truths such as 2+2=4, and extrapolating from those simpler
truths to more complex ones, such as the value of Chaitin's constant (which
has a value dependent on the executions of all possible programs).

Jason

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > 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 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.
>> 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.
> 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