On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> >> >>> Answers are a dime a dozen, correct answers are not. And Bruno doesn't >>> even know what questions to ask, like, "what does the pronoun "you" refer >>> to, or what does "free will" even mean, or does the word "God" mean >>> anything other than a amorphous grey blob, or does a chain of "why" >>> questions ever come to an end?". Bruno hasn't even thought it important to >>> ask these questions much less find the answers. >>> >> >> > >> You said you had no answers to the question of why matter obeys physical >> laws. Now that I show you one possibility, you say they are a dime a >> dozen. >> > > I always have an answer but if I don't have a good answer to a question > I either say I don't know or just keep my mouth shut. > > > >>> >> >>> You conclude with " >>> Conscious Minds >>> " >>> >> >> > >> This is the conclusion of computationalism. >> > > No, the existence of conscious minds (or at least the existence of one > conscious mind) is a observation not a conclusion; it is the starting point > not the ending point. > > >> > >> Anytime there exist appropriate Turing machines there will be >> consciousness. >> > > That is a > conclusion of computationalism. > > >> > >> You assume only certain Turing machines (those implemented by matter) can >> be consciouss, >> > > All computationalism needs is a > Turing machine > that can actually make a calculation, and so far every single one of > them has been made of matter. No exceptions have ever been found and no > reason to think one ever will be, > . > >> >> >>> but I do NOT assume nor do I need to conclude that a conscious mind or >>> the physical universe exist because I know both from direct experience. >>> >> >> > >> This is an assumption >> > > If my consciousness is an assumption could you give me a example of > something that is NOT an assumption? > > >> > >> (but perhaps you are blind to it being an assumption). You cannot assume >> the existence of the physical world from an experience of a physical world, >> as our dreams and the movie The Matrix or The Thirteenth Floor illustrate. >> > > Maybe I do live in virtual reality, Nick Bostrom thinks we almost > certainly do and he is a pretty smart man, but that would not shake my > confidence that my consciousness exists one bit, nor would it cause me to > think that the words "physical world" have no meaning or that there isn't > a difference between London and Hogwarts or between Winston Churchill and > Harry Potter. > > >> > >> Computationalism alone says you are not matter >> > > True, > > c > omputationalism > says I am the way matter behaves when it organized in a johnkclarkian > way and I have observed that when matter behaves in a > johnkclarkian way > consciousness is produced. I can use > c > omputationalism > to conclude that when matter is organized in a jasonreschian way > consciousness is also produced, but only > Jason Resch > can observe it. > > >> > >> You also have said two identical computations do not result in two >> people, but are the implementation of the same mind. >> > > Yes. > > > >> > >> From this you might conclude that you are everyone one of your >> implementations across all the many worlds or possible physical worlds. >> > > No not every one of my implementations; one of the John Clarks is just > like me except he remembers becoming a rodeo clown and another of being > elected Pope, and I don't remember either of those things. > > >> > >> But computationalism also tells us the substrate is of no relevance, you >> can make computers out of pulleys, twigs, water pipes, etc. In effect, the >> relations between registers in some silicon chip, or relations between >> neurons, or electrons, form computations. >> > > Yes. > > >> > >> So why not go the last mile and accept that you can even build computers >> out of relations between integers, >> > > Because for computers (or for anything else) to actually DO anything > change is involved, and there is plenty of evidence that one pulley can > change another pulley and one neuron can change another neuron > > or one transistor can change another transistor, but there is ZERO > evidence one integer can change another. > There is no evidence <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)> anything in physics changes either. And some evidence <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9470/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf> against it. If our universe is a four-dimensional static structure, then change is only apparent. > > >> > >> Since the physical world is in essense identical and isomorphic to some >> mathematical object >> [...] >> > > They are not identical, physical objects can change by themselves but as > far as is known mathematical objects can not. > There is no evidence physical objects change. “People like us, who believe in Physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” - Albert Einstein Popper called Einstein Parmenides, a Greek philosopher known for arguing that "reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging." > > > >>>> >> >>>> >>>> a physical process is simulating the properties of a (relatively) >>>> abstract mathematical object. >>>> >>> >>> >> >>> And that is the one and only type of >>> >>> mathematical object >>> >>> there is any evidence for. >>> >> >> > >> What about the >10^500 other models of physics implied by string theory? >> > > What about them? There is ZERO experimental evidence that any of those > 10^500 string theory worlds exist, and that is exactly why a lot of people > are getting fed up with string theory. > Because they naively hold out hope that mathematics will isolate only one of these theories as the only one that is possible. I think they are too personally invested in being the one to discover a single elegant TOE. > Some say that a theory that predicts 10^500 unobservable things is not a > theory of everything but a theory of anything which is equivalent to a > theory of nothing. > Most of reality we cannot observe. I'm comfortable with there being many things outside our small sphere of observability. Why aren't you? > > > >> Do you think we are just extraordinarily lucky that the one universe you >> suppose to exist happened to had laws that were amenable to life? >> > > No, I don't think luck entered into it. I think there was a 100% chance > that the universe I live in would be a universe amenable to life, > Read "The Cosmic Landscape". > > >> >>> >> >>> If that were true and we >>> can't >>> >>> effect them and they can't affect us >>> then it would not be science it would be philosophy or even worse >>> theology. >>> >> >> > >> There are plenty of things in science we cannot effect and cannot effect >> us, but are nonetheless important conclusions from legitimate theories: >> - The past >> > > The past effects us. > > > > >> Beyond our cosmological horizon >> > > The universe is accelerating so there are objects that are beyond our > cosmological horizon today that were not beyond our cosmological horizon > yesterday. > > >> > >> Things beyond our past/future light cones >> > > If the inflation theory is correct (and we'll probably know in a few > years if it is or not) then at one time things expanded far far faster > than light and long ago everything was within our future light cone. > > >> > >> Branches of the wave function that have split off >> > > As I said there is evidence, although not ironclad evidence, that they > do effect the 2 slit experiment. Perhaps the evidence will get better. > > >> > >> Other pockets/bubbles of inflation >> > > If inflation exists they must exist to be consistent. > > > >> > >> Other universes with different laws implied by string theory >> >> Are these things philosophy/theology? >> > > It's starting to look like string theory may be. > > I hope I'm wrong. > > > >> Do you think if other types of physics are possible (such as other >> equations of string theory) >> > > If string theory is correct then some of the laws of physics that we think > of as fundamental really are not > but > are just happenstance > , > like the fact that there are 8 planets around the sun (or is it 9?), but > other physical laws really would be true for all 10^500 universes, like the > fundamental way physical strings behave. The second law of thermodynamics > would hold true in all 10^500 universes too although that may be closer to > a law of logic than a law of physics. > > > >> So you deny the existence of anything you cannot see? >> > > I > deny anything > that contradicts experimental results. > So then you have no reason to deny other universes which are by definition unobservable. Note: just because they are unobservable does not mean there is no evidence for them, as they may be consequences of falsifiable theories for which there is evidence for. > > >> >> >>> The obvious explanation is that having a perfectly valid mathematical >>> structure may be necessary for existence but it is not sufficient because >>> physics is more fundamental than mathematics >>> >> >> > >> Why is a universe defined by these laws reified, while others are not? >> > > Physics! A universe that has physics can actually do something, but > there is ZERO evidence a universe without physics can do a damn thing > regardless of if it's mathematical structure is consistent or not > See above about the true nature of time. > > >>> >> >>> The greatest mystery about the >>> mind-body problem >>> is figuring out what you would consider an adequate explanation. If I >>> said X produced mind and X was mind you would protest and say that was just >>> a tautology, and if it was not mind you would say "but X is not mind". I >>> believe that mind-body problem fanboys forget that the chain of "why" >>> questions either terminates with a brute fact or goes on forever. So after >>> saying that consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being >>> processed (by matter) there may not be anything more to be said. >>> >> >> > >> Take out the "by matter" and tell me why that changes what data should >> feel like when its processed. >> > > What changes is that without matter there is no evidence for and no > reason to think that any calculations are being performed at all; no > theorist has provided a mechanism for doing it and no experimentalist can > provide a example of it having been done. > If you believe 2 + 2 = 4, then you should also believe the function F defined as F(x) = x + 2, will return 4 when given input x = 2. And if you believe this, then you should also believe there is a function P(s) which when given s_1 as encoding the state of the tape and registers of a Turing machine returns a number s_2 encoding the state of the tape and registers after the Turing machine advances by one step. And if you believe in such functions like P, you also the function P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) implements N steps of a Turing machine initialized with state s_1 and returns s_n. These functions exist, and compute as surely as F(x) adds 2 to x. > > >> > >> The Church-Turing thesis says that it is impossible for any computation >> (or program) to know what hardware it is running on. >> > > It's not impossible at all, the John Clark program knows it is being run > on 3 pounds of grey goo. > He doesn't. As he said earlier, he doesn't know whether or not Nick Bostrom is right. > The Church-Turing thesis > says that a person can complete a problem with pencil and paper if and > only if it is computable with a Turing Machine. > > > >> Are you 100% certain you are executed by the quarks and electrons of the >> standard model, and not some alternate exotic form of stuff from some >> entirely different universe ruled by other equations? >> > > I'm *probably* not 100% certain about anything, although I guess I might > be. > > >>> >> >>> I suggest you read " >>> A Universe from Nothing >>> " >>> by Lawrence M. Krauss >>> , it doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing but it >>> does explain the enormous progress physics has made in just the last 20 >>> years or so in explaining why there is a lot rather than very little. Pure >>> mathematics has made zero progress on this matter in the same time. >>> >>> >> >> > >> I beg to differ. And Krauss's book is mistitled. The vaccuum Krauss says >> the universe came from is far from "nothing". >> > > You have not read the book. Krauss spends an entire long chapter > explaining the various meanings of "nothing" and of "vacuum". And on the > first page admits he will not be able to satisfy his critics who want him > to explain how something can come from nothing that is so nothing that it > doesn't even have the potential to be something, but Krauss shouldn't feel > bad about that because even God can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift > it. > Reception[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Universe_from_Nothing&action=edit§ion=2> ] Philosopher of science and physicist David Albert <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albert>, in a review for *The New York Times <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times>*, said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term *nothing* to refer to a quantum vacuum <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state> instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (i.e. instead of having the meaning "not anything").[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing#cite_note-5> Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by (and largely ignored in) the book, physicist Sean M. Carroll <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll> asks "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don’t see how they could."[6] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing#cite_note-6> Similarly, physicist George F. R. Ellis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis>, when asked whether Krauss has "solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing", notes that the "belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy ... Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence)."[7] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing#cite_note-7> Mathematical Physicist I. S. Kohli also analyzed the main technical arguments in Krauss' book, and concluded that "many of the claims are not supported in full by modern general relativity theory or quantum field theory in curved spacetime".[8] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing#cite_note-8> > > > >>> >> >>> Do you really think Bruno has done any better at answering these >>> problems, or any problems? >>> >>> >> >> > >> Yes. >> > > I beg to differ. > > >> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >>>> It >>>> [mathematics] >>>> answers the mind-body problem, >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> That is news to me! So then what is the answer? >>> >>> >> >> > >> One's consciousness is the result of infinite programs that implement the >> same computational state >> > > How? You're missing a step, > > " > infinite programs that implement the same computational state > " is not consciousness. > > >> > >> the material universe is only apparent. > > > OK, but how would things be different if the > material universe > was not > only apparent > ? > It wouldn't be any different. But the material universe would be superfluous and add nothing to the theory. Just like the hypothesized physical world adds nothing in the context of Leibniz's Pre-established harmony. > > >> >> > >> Russel Standish and Bruno Marchal both recovered a quantum reality from >> information theory and self-reference logic alone, respectively. >> > > Extra virgin, triple distilled, premium grade *BULLSHIT!!! * > > Your bold-faced text and explanation points were extra convincing. > > >> See above. >> > > Why, what's above? > I forgot, you deleted the context of my answer. Go back to the original e-mail and it might be clear. 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/d/optout.
