On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:31 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. >> >> > > > > Which implies a high probability that other universes, ruled by different > laws, exist. > Obviously, except of course the physical law that makes you conclude that there are 10^500 universes in the first place. So what's your point? >> >> 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 the simulation is accurate, you gain accurate information about that > which is simulated. > A simulation is never 100% accurate, if they were absolutely identical there would be no point in doing it because we already have the real one. I think that when a physical object like your brain adds 2 and 2 it's not a simulation at all and the 4 it produces is as real as integers get and i s exactly precisely 4. But you think it's just simulation so all you know is that simulated 2 and simulated 2 is approximately 4, but its exact value depends on how good the simulation is. > > >> 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. >> > > > > Right that's the problem. The computations and their results exist out > there already. But they don't interact with the atoms of our universe. > They don't interact with the atoms of our universe ?! Why the hell not, according to you those very atoms are made of nothing but numbers! > > >>> >> >>> For us to arrange atoms in a way that corresponds to these computations >>> or results, we need to build physical simulations of those computations. >> >> >> >> >> So why can't you? > > > > > What kind of mechanism are you proposing is possible to cause atoms to > arrange themselves into the final result of a long running calculation? > You tell me. You're the one who insists that numbers pull the strings on everything that happens in the physical world not me. > >>> >> >>> >>> 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. >> > > > > You are conflating a computation with a physical approximation/simulation > OK, your physical brain has run a approximation/simulation of 2 + 2 so now you know the answer is approximately 4, but it could be 3.9 or 4.1. > > of that computation. "P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = s_n" can't perform a calculation or a simulation or even an approximation because "P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = s_n" is just a sequence of ASCII characters. But a physical microprocessor can do all of those things. > > I give up. > OK. > > > You clearly aren't interested in learning. I'm always willing to learn, but only from those who have something true and interesting to teach. 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.
