On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> those theories have nothing to do with our self identification so why are >> we even talking about it? >> > > *>Because the problem of self identification becomes a fundamental > problem in ultimate ensemble theories.* > We don't need the ultimate Theory Of Everything to perform self identification, we don't have it and yet we can do it. Even Og the caveman could do it. > *> move on to step 4 of the UDA.* I can't because step 3 is utterly ridiculous, that was obvious to me 2 minutes after I started reading it 5 years ago and I have found no reason since then to change my opinion. >* * > *If you believe in the computational theory of mind, then all possible > experiences can be described purely in terms of computation. * > I believe that I computation can produce any mind. And I believe that to perform a calculation something needs to change. And I believe the only thing that can change is matter/energy. > > > *If physics is about predicting future experiences, * > We use our knowledge of physics to predict future experiences, usually it works but occasionally it does not. Michelson predicted that light would travel at different speeds in different directions due to the Earth's motion around the sun, when he performed a experiment to confirm this he found he was wrong; he was very surprised but he did not loose his consciousness or sense of self when that happened, instead he got a Nobel Prize. > > > *then by computationalism, physics is governed by the set and evolution of > possible conscious computations.* > You've got that backwards. If computationalism is true then conscious computations are governed by physics. > > >> And the thing that makes matter interesting is that it can perform >> computations and nothing else can. >> > > >** > *What evidence do you have for this?* > The Intel Corporation's annual report and the fact that they are unable to find anything that can change except for matter/energy hence the justification for the 13.1 billion dollars the company spent last year on discovering new ways of getting the element Silicon to perform calculations and the reason the president of Intel has not been fired for wasting money. https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/annual/Intel_ Annual_Report_Final-3.20.pdf > >> >> I don't see how it could because nobody has found a way to make a >> calculation without using matter or energy; >> > > *>You say and believe this only because you have defined a computation > as a physical computation.* > I say that one essential property a computation must have is existence, and nobody has ever found even a hint of a computation existing except for a physical computation. I also say mere existence is not enough, even if if all correct computations exist all incorrect ones exist too, physics can tell the difference between one and the other and nothing else can. > >** > *Let's say there are two physical universes: "Universe A" and "Universe > B", which do not interact but have similar physics and both have evolved > intelligent life. We live in Universe A. Would you say that computations > and computers can exist Universe B, even though Intel can't make use of the > computations in Universe B?* > The information is not in Universe B in any meaningful sense and will have to be computed again unless the answer can somehow be communicated to universe B. If you insist the correct answer already exists in a Platonic sense in both universes then you have an additional problem, incorrect answers exist too and there are infinity many incorrect ones and only one correct one, machines that operate according to the laws of physics is the only way to find the needle in that infinitely large haystack. >> >> I know typing ASCII characters onto a computer screen won't work because >> that is just a list of instructions to DO something, and matter/energy is >> the the only thing ever found that can change, that is to say DO something. >> > > *>We've previously established that nothing need change in physics. The > universe can be viewed as an unchanging 4-dimensional block. * > Nothing changes relative to which of the 4 dimensions? The 4-D block universe is certainly not a simple symmetrical structure, it changes radically along every one of those 4 dimensions in enormously complex ways. > > > *Relativity strongly suggests that is how things really are. You might > say a "time dimension" is needed for something to happen, but change (in > terms of something having to stop existing and something new having to > start existing to take its place) is not.* > Time is one of the 4 dimensions of that block universe, at a different spacial coordinate the universe will look different and the same is true for a different time coordinate. If at at event X I don't know the answer to a calculation but at event Y I do then between X and Y something has changed, I either made a calculation or received a communication from somebody who has, and nobody has ever made a calculation or a communication without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. 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.
