On 26 June 2014 03:49, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29 May 2014, at 00:17, LizR wrote: > > On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and therefore >>> consciousness) can exist without physics. That physical instantiation is >>> dispensable. >>> >> >> Yes indeed. I would say that for comp to be meaningful, it's necessary >> to show that information is a real (and fundamental) thing, rather than >> something that only has relevance / meaning to us - I suppose deriving the >> entropy of a black hole, the Beckenstein bound and the holographic >> principle all hint that this is the case. (Maybe QM unitarity and the black >> hole information paradox too?) >> >> I'm not sure how secure a footing any of these items put the "reification >> of information" it on, though. >> >> As Bruno has noted, we live on border between order and chaos - neither >> maximum nor minimum information/entropy but something like "complexity". >> Here's recent survey of ways to quantify it by Scott Aaronso, Sean Carroll >> and Lauren Ouellette. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1818 >> > > As usual I don't have time to read that paper, at least not immediately. > However I see that defining complexity appear to require coarse graining. > If so, I would take this to mean that there isn't anything fundamental > being defined - or at least that we're in a grey area where nothing is > known to be fundamental. On the other hand, entropy used to require coarse > graining but as I mentioned above has now been defined for black holes, so > assuming BHs really exist (and the things we think are BHs aren't some > other type of massive object of an undefined nature) that would at least > suggest that fundamental physics involves entropy, and hence information. > > Is there any complexity measure that doesn;t involve CG and hence isn't > just (imho) "in the eye of the beholder" ? > > > Computer science provides a lot of definition for complexity, below the > computable, like SPACE or TIME needed, related to tractability issues and > above the computable, like the degree of unsolvability shown to exists by > using machine + oracles (for example). > > Those notion are typically not in the eye of the beholder, as they are the > same for all universal numbers. Computer scientist says that they are > machine-independent notion. They remain invariant for the change of the > base of the phi_i. > > With comp, what i showed is that we have indeed to extract the law of the > qubits ("quantum logic") from the laws of the bits (the laws of Boole, + > Boolos). IMO, Everett + decoherence already shows the road qubits to bits. > But comp provides a double (by G/G*) reverse of that road, which separates > quanta and qualia (normally, although quanta must be a first person plural). > > It sounds to me as though you are saying that information is real if arithmetic is real...?
(If so, deriving the entropy of a black hole would be support for comp :-) -- 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/d/optout.
