On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:11 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>> You could argue that all modern science has done is prove the vacuum is >>> not nothing and although Leibniz was wrong about that the question remains >>> valid, but I would say expecting science to explain how a nothing that is >>> so nothing that it doesn't even have the potential of ever becoming >>> something is unreasonable. Even a omnipotent omniscient God couldn't do >>> that, it would be like asking Him to make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. >>> >> >> *>This is giving up. I think we can, and have explained why there is >> something rather than nothing.* >> > > > That depends on how nothing nothing is. Leibniz would say although there > is still not a definitive answer a enormous amount of progress has been > made in answering that question, but now people say because of that very > progress it doesn't count. If you define nothing as "that which does not > even have the potential of ever becoming something" then the only logical > thing for scientists to do is indeed to give up. And they are not the only > ones, God should give up trying to answer that too. > > >> >* * >> *Even if no thing existed, there would still be a difference between "1 = >> 0" and "0 = 0".* >> > > One doesn't exist and zero doesn't exist. No difference. > > If they're not different then how can "no thing" a.k.a. "zero things" remain consistent if there is no difference between "zero things" and "1 thing"? > > >> > >> There would still be a difference between "7 is composite" and "7 is >> prime", and you can continue this up to far less trivial truths about much >> bigger numbers, such as solutions to the Diophantine equation that >> simulates the time evolution of the Schrodinger equation >> > > > So now you have an equation simulating an equation that is describing the > probability of a event occurring in the physical world, you are describing > with words a painting of a roulette wheel. Except of course an equation > can't simulate anything, to do that you need a computer made of matter and > energy to run it. > Something is computing/has computed the evolution of our universe. What is it? > > > > >> >> > >> *Consider the first person views of conscious gliders in Conway's Game of >> Life. From their point of view*, >> [...] >> > > A Turing Machine can be built from Conway's Life game and gliders would be > a key part of it, but a individual glider has no intelligence and the > chances it is conscious and has a point of view are about the same as the > brain neurotransmitter molecule Acetylcholine being conscious. > > The smallest possible gliders might not be conscious, but this doesn't preclude more complex gliders that could perceive and be conscious of things in their environment. > > >** > *the evolution of their game moves forward, according to discrete and > simple rules. But they would wonder why. * > > > Physicist in the Life world might discover those rules after years of > effort, and to them that would be a physical discovery not a mathematical > one. And even to us who can see things from the outside of their world that > they can't its still about physics and the movement of electrons through a > machine made of matter. > > > >>>> >> >>>> >>>> *Feynman: "It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we >>>> understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of >>>> logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a >>>> region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that >>>> be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of >>>> logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do?"* >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> That is exactly why I think the field of Quantum Computers has such >>> enormous potential. >>> >> >> *>But can you explain it?* >> > > > If I could I'd be writhing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech right now and > not be farting around on the Everything List. > You are on the everything list, is there any concept of "everything" you believe in? Does it go beyond Everett's many worlds? > > *>Computationalism can, as the infinite set of computations that realize > your mind, all of which exist platonically at a level of finer detail than > is relevant/necessary for the implementation of your mind.* > > The infinite set of computations may exist in Plato's heaven, but nearly > all of those computations are wrong and in heaven there is no way to tell > the difference between correct and incorrect. > Consciousness self-selects itself. The non-conscious computations are not perceived, so don't matter. The computations that implement conscious observers find themselves as conscious observers. > It's like the Jorge Luis Borges short story "The Library Of Babel", it > contains every possible book of 1000 pages or less all arranged in > alphabetical order. The first book is nothing but a thousand pages of > {....aaaaaaaaaaaaaa...}, the second book is identical except that page 1000 > ends with {...aaaaaaaaaaaaab}, the last book is nothing but > {....zzzzzzzzzz...} . The library contains every great book ever written > and every great book that will be written, it contains every true statement > that can be expressed in 1000 pages or less and the library is totally and > completely useless because the vast majority of books are just gibberish > and the vast majority of non-gibberish books are false and there is no way > to tell the true ones from the false and because of the way the books are > arranged there is no way to find a specific book unless you already know > exactly what is in it. > > >> > >> *Do you think the 10^(10^120)th binary digit of Pi has a definite, but >> yet unknown value?* >> > > If the entire universe does not have sufficient computational capacity to > ever calculate it and the word "exists" is to have any meaning then that > digit does not exist. > But if the digits of Pi stop somewhere, then e^(2 * Pi * i) != 1. Do you think e^(2 * Pi * i) == 1 ? > > > >> >> >>> As you point out, the answer a Turing Machine spite out depends on its >>> program not what its made of, you can make one with silicon or vacuum tubes >>> or mechanical gears or even Lego blocks, but you can't make one out of pure >>> numbers, it you could be Intel wouldn't need silicon, and it does. >>> >> >> >** >> *I've given counter examples already. Look at my first and second post in >> this thread.* >> > > I did look and I saw no such counter example or even a hint of one. > This is because you use a non-standard definition of computation, where a computation is only a computation if it can in principle get the result into John Clark's brain. > > > >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Definitions are made for our convenience, they do not create physical >>>>> objects. >>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >>>> *Physical theories are also made for our convenience and they do not >>>> tell physical objects what to do.* >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> Yes, but physical theories do tell **us** what those physical objects >>> will do under a certain range of conditions, outside of that range we ned >>> to find a better theory. >>> >> >> > >> *You deleted my comment that showed the analogy between physical theories >> and mathematical theories. Why?* >> > > Because I'm a mendacious evil being with no interest in finding the truth, > is that what you want me to say? Come on Jason, we were having a very nice > discussion, there is no reason to get all nasty now. This list is not the > Talmud and neither of us is obligated to comment on every line of the > others post, and if I'm not commenting on it I see little reason to repeat > verbatim what you already said. In this particular instance I did not > comment because I didn't think the point you made was very important and > because I had no strong disagreement with it, although I might have phrased > it a little differently and mentioned the difference between a mathematical > object and a physical object; a physical object can effect me even if I’m > not thinking about it but a mathematical object can’t. > > I really hate the iterated layers of quotations seen on this list that can > sometimes be 10 layers deep so I always limit my quotations to the specific > thing I'm commenting on, however I want to keep the peace and therefore I > will now include your quotation in full even though it is already on the > list: > If there are things I say that you do agree with, it would help to know that so we can build upon that common understanding. > === > > " > Physical theories are also made for our convenience and they do not tell > physical objects what to do. > Instead we study physical objects, and try to reason about what laws make > sense and describe the phenomenon we observe. > > It is no different with mathematical theories (a.k.a. axioms and > theorems). Mathematicians study mathematical objects, and reason about > what laws make sense to describe the phenomenon we observe. When they find > sufficient justification, they can amend or extend the fundamental theories > (axioms), or even throw them out altogether. > " > > === > > > >> >> *>(k^2 - kx - x^2)^2 - 1 = 0 --> (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, >> 55, 89, ... )* >> *In this Fibbonacci relation, F_n = F_(n-1) + F_(n-2)* >> *Can we then say, that each element has a "memory" of its two previous >> successors?* >> > > > Memory" of its two previous successors? A element can't can't even > remember what set its supposed to be in unless that information somehow > encoded in matter that obeys the laws of physics. > You can implement any computation with a recursive function <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C-recursive_function>. Therefore, if as you say, a computer requires having a memory to compute something, then either that is false or you must view recursive functions as having memories. > > >> *>If that analogy is too much of a stretch for you, what about the >> "Game of Life" equation, which contains as its solutions the states of an >> evolving game of life simulation. To compute this evolution, we need a >> memory of the state to track its evolution. * >> > > That is very true, you need a memory if you want the Life pattern to > evolve, and that memory is in the the form of electrical charges in > billions of capacitors imprinted on a RAM chip. > > > >> *You started with "0" universes exist", "0" is "1 thing", so then 1 >> exists. * >> > > The concept "exists > " > has meaning only because of contrast, some things exist and some don't, > if there was everything then a statement about the existence or > nonexistence of X would contain no information because it would tell you > nothing you didn't already. The same thing would be true if there were > nothing. > >> >> *>So you believe there is a largest prime?* >> > > I even believe there is a largest integer, it is so large that it would be > impossible to add 1 to it. And if the Bekenstein bound is true, and most > physicists think it is, then the entire universe can only contain 10^124 > bits of information, so beyond a certain point every integer is a prime > because the very universe itself can't find any factors for them. They are > finite but so large that there is no way to even know what their last digit > is much less their factors. > > > But how do you know there isn't a bigger universe somewhere else that can access those numbers? 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
