On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Of the 10^500 string theory physics, maybe 1 in a million or fewer are > rich enough to support life. > If so then there are 10^494 universes rich enough to support life , and there is a 100% probability that the universe I live in is one of them. >> >> a simulation is not identical to the thing being simulated, if it was >> there would be no reason to go to all the bother of simulating it, we >> already have the real thing. Simulations take shortcuts and sometimes end >> up being wrong as the weather department could tell you. If you believe >> that our arithmetic is just simulated arithmetic then all you know is that >> with our current simulations simulated 2 and simulated 2 is the same as >> simulated 4, but as our simulations get better you must consider the >> possibility that it could approach 4.01. However if you believe as I do >> that the numbers we use in our arithmetic are not simulated but are the >> real deal and if you believe as I do not that numbers are more fundamental >> than physics then you have grave problems explaining why INTEL bothers with >> silicon microchips and doesn't just make calculations directly with pure >> numbers. >> > > > > I don't know what you are arguing here. > If physical objects like a calculator or your brain *don't* have access to numbers then you know nothing about numbers you only know about simulated numbers. If physical objects like a calculator or your brain *do* have access to actual non-simulated numbers and if numbers are all that's required to make a calculation then physical object should be able to make arbitrarily large calculations instantly with no expenditure of energy. So why can't you? > >> >> I think it's a fact about the physical universe that humans have >> discovered that is independent of them, but if whenever 2 rocks and 2 rocks >> were brought together a new rock would pop into existence then humans would >> say 2 +2 =5, but that's not the way the physical world works. >> >> > > > > then you should by extension believe that P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = > s_n independently of you, me, > Those are some very nice ASCII characters you've typed there, but the truth is I don't care if it's independent of you or not because "P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = s_n" can't make a calculation nor can any sequence of ASCII characters, but a silicon microprocessor can. >> >> It doesn't matter what I believe and it doesn't matter what I can prove >> because neither a belief nor a proof can make a calculation, but a silicon >> microprocessor can. >> >> > > > > This follows from your assumption that the physical laws as true. > No . The calculation doesn't follow from an assumption , it follows from a silicon microprocessor . >> >> >> Talk about delusions of grandeur! So Russell and Bruno can derive Quantum >> Mechanics from nothing but pure numbers, >> > > > > And a few assumptions about reality. > Unless one of the assumptions about reality is that quantum theory as developed by Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Feynman and hundreds of other brilliant minds over the last century is true you are talking about one of the purest forms of Bullshit I have ever seen. > > > It will take a lot of computation to determine what the distribution is > for computations that contain conscious sub-components, and what types of > physics those conscious sub-components observe of their environments. > But that should be easy! You say calculations don't require matter or energy or time, all that's needed is numbers; well you have access to numbers so JUST make the calculation . It should take you no time at all. 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 [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.
