If one goes computationalism, and the observing of virtual photons arising from
nothing, then we can conclude that rather then a value of 0, the greater cosmos
must be densely packed with energy or information, as yet difficult to access
by contemporary technology. How do we detect what occurs within a Planck Cell?
If you go by Schmidhuber's teachings which are similar but not as thorough as
Steinhart has been, beyond all emergences, exists a basic computer, allegedy,
as opposed to a primary blender, or lawn mower. Since a computer is more
complex, I will prefer choosing the term computer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to
dialectics?
On 17 Feb 2015, at 13:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Very good. I do go computationalism myself, but in a weird way.
As long as you are valid, you can be as weird as you want.
I confer that everything we see is running on software, but the software
yields physical reality, perhaps as a side effect.
Hmm... Computationalism, as I define it, is that *you*, or what you can count
on you, is run by a software.
Then everything we live and see, including physics (if that exists), is a side
effect.
But then a priori physics and what we see cannot be Turing emulable. The
apparent emulability of nature is a problem for the computationalists, but with
computer science it becomes a mathematically formulable problem.
The idea is very simple, once you are aware of some result in computer science,
notably the fact that once you agree that a tiny part of the arithmetical
reality, or any other computer-science theoretical reality, is independent of
you and me.
This is implicitly used in physics, through the use of mathematical theories,
usually richer than arithmetic, but this is debatable.
But that reality, conceptually much simpler than physics, or physics + a
creator, contains the experience you are living here and now. That is a *fact*.
All executions of all programs can be translated into an infinity of purely
arithmetical relations, that is the fact, but then, once you assume
computationalism, you can understand that your consciousness is not related to
this or that realization by this or that universal numbers, but, below your
substitution, results from the statistics on a infinity of those arithmetical
realizations of programs execution.
An infinite or near infinite reality, whether you invoke MWI,
We can't a priori assume QM, but semantically and intuitively, computationalism
forces a similar move than Everett, but not on the universal unitary
transformation, just on the sigma_1 part of arithmetic. The sigma_1 part is the
computable part, it is the Turing emulable part of the arithmetical reality,
which extends considerably in the non computable part.
By the FPI, we are undetermined on that collection of realizations. By computer
science, it has what is needed for an abstract measure, hopefully with the
right groups.
or subdomains within an infinite cosmos, would handle the energy issue, quite
well.
Energy is the constant 0. The nothing physical, which already emulate largely
the physical reality. But this is from observation, and with computationalism
(and the mind-body problem in mind) we need to derive even this from the
arithmetical mind-body problem.
But it works. Things have been done at the propositional level.
And thanks to incompleteness, the notion of truth acts like a notion of God for
the machine, which makes possible an interpretation of Plotinus.
It just won't consume an infinite right here, in this universe or domain. In
fact, energy may just be software, in a level or reality above us.
With comp you can start from the bottom, you assume only what you need for
defining your favorite universal reality, and you derive the laws coupling
minds and stable realities from mathematical logic, and mathematics.
I use arithmetic because it is taught in high school.
The real debate is not on the existence of God, (which is rather obvious), it
is on the existence of the Physical Universe.
Is there a physical universe? Aristotle seems to have believe this.
Plato was open to the idea that the physical universe is only an aspect of a
simpler deeper reality, and some tradition have defended the idea that the
deeper reality might be arithmetical or mathematical. Even in that case,
computationnalism makes it impossible to reduce the whole of truth to a 3p
reality, so comp prevents even the reduction in that part. It is the price of
consistency (<>t).
Consciousness/conscience (<>t inference) accelerates the path toward truth.
Alas,
Lies ([]f = ~<>t, or "worst" []<>t, can too. Delusions can help, but you cut
your link with the main deities <>t, G*, Z1*, X1*.
Here we are at the beginning, and I describe only the theology of the correct,
never lying machine. The theology of the liar is a much more complex subject.
Fortunately, it does not seems liars are required to extract physics from
arithmetic. It is less clear for the biological evolution, where preys and
predator can lie to each others.
Bruno
Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of
computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on
all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet
taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me
at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still
be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are
in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of
energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the
details of the simulation].
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
to dialectics?
On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Interesting John. In steinharts view the first initiator of reality may indeed
not have been a super mind, except in power. Kind of like gnosticism, maybe.
2+2=4 is enough. No need to add unnecessary metaphysics. This is not
controversial, although not well known by philosophers, logicians know this
since Gödel, Kleene, etc.
What is not trivial is that it leads to "new equation" for fundamental physics
(given by the FPI, translated in the intensional variant of self-reference,
making comp testable in some sense).
The succeeding universes and each cosm has a god will be succeedingly better.
But this does not make sense. Universe are not things which exists
ontologically.
People get moved to better universes after croaking, akin to processes getting
pipelined as with software engineering. We would be one on a gigantic
processes, aka programs, aka cellular automata, that are copied and then
initiated later. As with Bostrom, steinhart says that these programs, us,
eventually begin their own sim creations. I got this from steinharts other
papers I have been studying. So your critique of steinharts 1st mind or god,
would not find opposition with him, but it would suggest that evolution (to me)
must be a primary program. Thanks for your coment.
Once you bet on programs (computationalism) you belongs to infinities of
computations, and the appearance of the universe emerges from a statistics on
all computations. Bostrom participated to this list but seems to not have yet
taken into account the first person indeterminacy (FPI). He and others told me
at some meeting that this what sort of taboo. A part of his argument can still
be saved, as indeed comp implies that we can test [Computationalism OR we are
in a purposeful simulation, with entities which consume an infinite amount of
energy to lie to us, as they must change our minds each time we look at the
details of the simulation].
Bruno
Mitch
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory
to dialectics?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> John, see if you can read this paper. Its a slideshow from Ars Disputandi of
> an eric steinhart paper, on the theological implications of the simulation
> argument. This is the only copy I downloaded of the url, but I was able to
> do a download and print at work so I have hard copy. Steinhart seems to be
> an atheist, but believes there was a creator and now a system of creators
> above and beyond us, etc. I guess steinhart might say, yeah thers a god, but
> don't pray to him. If you can read this, please give out with the feedback.
> I am feeling the dude may be spot on, etc. But I will guess that you will
> not see it this way. Which is good with me.
http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/UnitB166ER/theological-implications-of-the-simulation-argument-by-eric-steinhart
Even if we are living in one of a infinite number of recursive simulations it
doesn't necessarily imply that the guy who's simulating us must be smarter than
we are, and it would be a pretty poor sort of God if we're smarter than He is.
A simulated hurricane is smarter at predicting what a real hurricane will do
than the meteorologist who created the simulation, and a simulated Chess
grandmaster is smarter at Chess than the real Chess grandmaster who wrote the
Chess program. And even if the simulation argument is true (and the restriction
on the number of calculations that can be performed in the observable universe
may rule out infinite levels, unless that restriction was just tacked on by our
simulators) you wouldn't have all the knowledge that the infinite number of
simulations below you have. Steinhart also seems to assume that every event
have a cause, but I know of no law of logic that demands that.
John K Clark
--
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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
