> On 27 Jun 2018, at 04:30, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[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. > > >These things take time to understand. Start with "Meta Math!" by Chaitin: > https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335 <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.
If that was true, you would have given the definition of computation that you have given lately, and you would have no problem in understanding how the elementary arithmetical reality emulates all computations, with a deep redundancy. > > >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. If the other computation emulates you, you might as well wake up in that other universe, be it physical or arithmetical. You have never explain what is the role of matter, besides its role explained by computationalism, and not assuming any primitive notion of matter. > > >>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. > > >>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 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. That does not follow from what Jason said. > > > 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. That is like saying we don’t need to solve DeWitt-Wheeler equation, because Nature already did it. > And I can explain how matter can make calculations How? First explain what is matter, then whatever proof shows that such matter is touring universal will use the fact that arithmetic (or combinators) are Turing universal. That can be proved. If you were right on this, the Church-Turing thesis would be violated. > but nobody around here has provided even a hint of how pure numbers could do > the same thing. That is done in all (good) textbook in mathematical logic or computability theory. That is in part what Gödel already showed in is 1931 paper, although he missed Church’s thesis, and so did not see the impact of its work on computation theory. > > >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 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. No need of energy to have the arithmetical computation. You need energy only to implement them relatively to you. Energy is an emerging statistical concept, if Mechanism is assumed. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
