On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 5:08:35 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *> Hawking radiation has made the r_- and I^+ no longer continuous. This >> means quantum mechanics prevents spacetimes from becoming Hobarth-Malement >> spacetimes that can be a universal Turing machine that can determine the >> halting status of any algorithm.* > > For that you'd need closed timelike curves and that is probably not > physically possible because paradoxes would abound if traveling into the > past could be done, the most important one for our discussion would be the > one that Turing found if you had a complete list of all computations that > would halt and all that would not. Also, all Malament-Hogarth spacetimes > have naked singularities but nobody has ever detected one and most think > nobody ever will because they don't exist. But what all this very > controversial hyper exotic physics that may or may not exist has to do with > the viability of Cryonics I don't quite see, unless you're saying well > established quantum physics and relativity can find no fundamental flaw in > the idea and so you need to go to the bleeding edge of speculation. The > only thing Black Holes and consciousness have in common is both are odd. >
The MH spacetimes have Cauchy horizons that because they pile up geodesics can be a sort of singularity. This is a mass inflation singularity, which involves some complexity beyond this discussion. In effect this is due to a black hole not being an eternal solution but something that is generated physically. Fields and particles that enter a black hole are described by lowering quantum operators, with Bogoliubov coefficients etc, and Hawking radiation by raising operators. The mass inflation singularity is in the case of Kerr and related RN and KN spacetimes contained inside the black hole and are then not naked singularities in the standard sense. > *> The point of the NP-complete algorithm and the soap bubble >> demonstration is that nature does not solve them. * > > Then the entire NP issue is irrelevant as far as consciousness is > concerned because my conscious brain produces consciousness and its natural > and physical, but my brain can’t solve NP-complete algorithms in > polynomial time any better than computer can, in fact I can't even do as > well as at is as computers. > The subject of NP-completeness came up because of my conjecture about there being a sort of code associated with a conscious entity that is not computable or if computable is intractable in NP. It could have some bearing on the ability to emulate consciousness in a computer. This topic of NP-completeness is of interest to me with respect to quantum error correction codes for black holes and AdS spacetime. This has some bearing on MH spacetimes, for mass inflation might only be avoided if there is some perfect quantum error correction code. This requires of course that the black hole be "physically eternal," which means there is a constant source of ingoing matter-fields that compensates for the loss due to Hawking radiation. Such a black hole would exist in an anti-de Sitter spacetime. In fact since the horizon states of the black hole would "mirror" states on the boundary this problem is pertinent to AdS spacetimes in general. The "map" being a mathematical system that pertains to mathematics is a case of a map to a map. This is different from a "map" that is mathematical or in the syntax of mathematics, and territory that is physical reality. the idea the two can be made identical strikes me as a piece of untestable metaphysics. Bruno seems disposed to this idea and Max Tegmark has related ideas. I think these things are not really scientifically credible ideas. When given the choice of ending my life 20 or 30 years prematurely with the promise of being uploaded into a computer for nearly eternal life, or spending a few hours this day at a pub drinking beer, I will go with the beer thank you. I don't think evolution tells us much about consciousness. We might of course have the case that we humans make conscious choices that influence genes. With the start of Tudor England after the War of the Roses the idea came about to clean England of people and their families who had a history of miscreant behavior. They were sent to the new colonies in America to work as indentured servants to the "neo-nobility" who set up plantations growing sorgum, tobacco and later cotton. They were called trash, and the term white trash exists to this day. Considering how many white southerners are given to wreckless or red-necked behavior you have to ponder whether they had the right idea on heritability. LC > > *> I think there is a difference between simulating something and thinking >> the simulation is the reality. * > > And I think a thing and its simulation are different only if the thing > being simulated is a noun, not if the thing being simulated is a verb or a > adjective, not if the thing being simulated is thinking. That’s why the 4 > my calculator produces when it adds 2+2 is exactly the same as 4 that I > produce when I add 2+2. So there would be no difference between you > thinking there is a difference between simulating something and thinking > the simulation is the reality, and a computer thinking there is a > difference between simulating something and thinking the simulation is the > reality. > > Yes a simulated flame is not identical to a real flame but to say it has > absolutely no reality can lead to problems. Suppose you say that for a fire > to be real it must have some immaterial essence of fire, a sort of burning > soul, thus a simulated flame does not really burn because it just changes > the pattern in a computer memory. The trouble is using the same reasoning > you could say that a real fire doesn't really burn, it just oxidizes > chemicals; but really a flame can't even do that, it just obeys the laws of > chemistry. A simulated flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a > simulated object. A real flame won't burn the laws of chemistry but it > will burn your finger. > >> *> There are massive computer programs to simulate the evolution of >> galaxy domains, walls and clusters in Λ-CDM. At no point would somebody say >> there is a real cosmology in the computer. * > > Today’s computer programs may be massive but they are not yet massive > enough to include a intelligence that can observe the workings of the > galactic simulation, to that intelligence the simulated galaxy would be the > only reality there is. > >> *> There is a computer brain project in Europe underway, and I don't >> think many people think this thing is going to start behaving like a real >> person. * > > What are you talking about, computers are already starting to act like > real people. > >> *> The map is not the territory.* > > A Ulam spiral is a map of the prime numbers, that map is the territory. > Shakespeare's First Folio is a map of Shakespeare's plays, and that map is > also the territory. > >> *> Evolution does not say much about consciousness. * > > *NONSENSE!* Evolution produced me. I know with 100% certainty that I am > conscious. I very strongly suspect billions of other things are conscious > too. I know for a fact Evolution can detect intelligent behavior but it > can’t detect consciousness and yet I am consciousness. Therefor > consciousness MUST be a byproduct intelligence. Evolution says as much > about consciousness as there is to say, it is the best purely logical > argument against solipsism, in fact it is the only one, all the others are > just variations of “my initiation says its untrue” or “solipsism is too > strange to be true”. > >> *> In fact largely it is about a stochastic randomizing of genes with >> single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and selection mechanisms. There is >> then an iteracted process of SNPs and selection.* > > True, but how is that relevant? > > > Biological evolution also effectively breaks down when it comes to > the origin of pre-biotic chemistry and early life. > > Darwin couldn’t explain how to get from simple chemicals to bacteria but > he could explain how to get from bacteria to human beings, not a bad days > work I’d say; and when it comes to intelligence or consciousness that’s the > step where the action is. > >> *> I will say that on the list of what is more probable, a Jupiter >> sized computer brain or that we humans blow it utterly, I think the latter >> is more plausible. * > > You may be right although I’m sure we both hope you’re not. > >> *>In fact this country has a barbarian for a President who just might do >> the trick. * > > > Yes,.Captain Bone Spurs is not only dishonest and crazy he’s also stupid. > In one way his stupidity is a good thing in that it lessens the probability > of him achieving his goal of becoming a dictator, but on the other hand it > doesn’t take much intelligence to start a war, even a thermonuclear war. So > if Jupiter Brains never get built don't thank Black Holes, thank Donald J > Trump. > > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
