On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > My complaint is that it implicitly assumes more than "Yes doctor". > It assumes that computation exists in a Platonic realm independent > of the physical.
This not really needed. At step 7 of the UDA, whatever is primary can be anything capable of universal computation, and phenomenal physics is unchanged. Primary physics then becomes the "invisible horse" of the horseless carriage. However, I can see the same point can be made of primary arithmetic. The only really primary thing in computationalism is (Turing) computation. Of course this doesn't speak to the "non-robust" or small universe move that is supposed to be addressed by the MGA. Whilst I'm not totally convinced by the MGA, I think that ultimately a non-robust universe will severely constrain the sort of computations possible with a quantum computer, and that a working 512 qubit quantum computer will be strong empirical evidence that we live in a robust universe anyway. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
