On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:30 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>> I'll be damned if I understand how all the Diophantine equations in the >>> world put together can store one bit of information, much less a unlimited >>> amount, you certainly never said how on earth they could do it, and the >>> scientists at Intel can't figure out how to do it either that's why they're >>> still using silicon. >>> >> We need silicon only to tell us what to ignore. Too many infinite bit strings exist in math, they exist in e, Pi, sqrt(2), etc. The infinite messages and data is all there, stored forever. What we ask of our computers is to tell us which of the infinite values is relevant to us. Data storage is a data transmission (through time, to someone in the future). > >> > >> These things take time to understand. Start with "Meta Math!" by >> Chaitin: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335 >> > > I would appreciate it if you'd stop talking down to me, I have seen no > indication you have a deeper understanding of these matters than I do and I > read Gregory Chaitin book in "Meta-Math" in 2006 when it first came out. > > > >> Do you see any difference between a computation that occurs in another >> physical universe and a computation necessary to get the information about >> the result into your brain? >> What is that difference, fundamentally? >> > > The information about the result needs to be communicated to me and if the > computation was done in another physical universe I don't know how to do > that nor do I see the point you were trying to make. > You would still consider it a real computation that exists, even if in principal you cannot get the result into your brain? My point is platonic computations are like computations that happen in other universes, beyond the cosmological horizon, in other non-interfering branches of the wave function, inside black holes, etc. Whether you can get the result into your brain or not doesn't make the difference as to whether or not they are real. > > >> >> >>> If we're talking about consciousness its irrelevant what things are like >>> from a objective viewpoint because subjectively time is the single most >>> important characteristic of existence. >>> >> >> >** >> *Subjectivity is important and should be explained, but that doesn't make >> the objective irrelevant. * >> > > It's irrelevant if the subject under discussion is consciousness and that > is pretty much all that the list wants to talk about. > > >> >** >> *If the objective theory says that an objectively timeless structure can >> give rise to a subjectivity that contains the illusion of time, then we >> should not demand an objective theory of reality* >> > > Illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon so its no good > to just label something an illusion you've got to explain how the illusion > works the way it does, only after that has been done is there any hope of > discovering anything objective behind it. > This explains the illusion well: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11921131.pdf The reason it is important is that if objective time is not required, then timeless platonic objects can be substrates of consciousness and computation. > > >> >>> Those equations don't crank out anything unless there is matter to form >>> a crank and energy to turn the crank, otherwise the equations just sit on >>> the printed page inert and dead. >>> >> >> > >> *The equation does nothing, the relation it describes does everything. >> (Just like the physics equations in your text book are ineffectual, what >> matters is the object described by the equations).* >> > > I agree. So what are we arguing about? > > The objects we hope are partly described by our equations, and whether they exist. > > >>> >> >>> The Deep-Blue equation doesn't crank out anything either unless its put >>> into Deep Blue machine. And even then nothing will happen unless the >>> machine is connected to the electrical power grid. >>> >>> >> >> > >> That step is required if you want to get the solutions into your brain. >> > > Then physics is vital for consciousness and can do something mathematics > can not. > A platonic computation could implement your consciousness without also implementing a parallel platonic Deep-Blue chess computation and feeding in the result into your consciousness. > > >> > >> Its not needed to create the computations, which exist as a fundamental >> feature of reality. >> > > If its a fundamental feature of reality then its already right here and > there would be no need to compute it again. > Not every existing computation is connected to supply every result to every instance of John Clark's consciousness computation. > And I can explain how matter can make calculations but nobody around here > has provided even a hint of how pure numbers could do the same thing. > > > >> *Assume there are two physical, A and B. You and I are in physical >> reality A. In physical universe B, a computation was run that enumerated >> every possible Deep Blue chess move.* >> *Would you still claim that Deep Blue's computations don't exist anywhere >> in reality, because we in universe A, still need to build a computer to >> access the results of the computations performed in universe B?* >> > > No, but I would say that if universe B performed a calculation there > must be matter that obeys the laws of physics. I would also say that for me > in in universe A things would continue just as they always have whether > universe B performed the calculation or not. > What if in universe B, they run a simulation of John Clark's brain as it is in universe A, right after a near by gamma ray burst destroys all life on Earth. Could you be resurrected by the programmers in universe B? > > > >> *What keeps it going? If computation (as you say) requires energy, what >> is computing the evolution of the physical universe? * >> > > Energy obviously. The less energy a physical system has the slower it > evolves, no energy no evolution. > > Energy is a means of doing work in this universe, it doesn't explain what keeps the universe itself going. It takes no energy to keep the planets revolving about the sun, but it takes a lot of computational power to figure out how all the atoms, particles, planets, etc. will interact with each other and evolve over time, does it not? 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.
