On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
*>Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you > but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile > fields and sprawling cities,* > Maybe. If the universe is infinite (and not just astronomical) then yes but nobody knows if it is, or if Many Worlds is true then yes but nobody knows for sure if that is true either. > * >in a solar system with eight other planets?* > The solar system I live in only has 7 other planets. Probably. > *>The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. > But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without > finishing it* > Then that person and I have diverged, we remember being the same person but things have changed. > *>If in your entire life you had only seen one red object, would you on > that basis conclude that there can only be one red object?* > Those are unusual circumstances so I don't know if I would conclude that or not, if I did then I would be wrong. However I'm sure I would conclude there was only one red, or at least only one red of that shade, and in that I would be correct. > *>If the computational theory of mind is true, then accurate prediction > requires the consideration of all possible future computational extensions > and their relative frequency in reality.* > Then any prediction would be impossible because nobody has an infinite mind, so nobody can consider all possible computations. > > *You believe in the physical existence of other universes besides the one > we can see, don't you?* > I have a hunch they exist but I've been wrong before. > >> >> >> 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. >> > > *>That's fairly weak evidence,* > I just gave you 13.1 billion reasons and think you that's weak? >> >> 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. >> > > *>So you agree the the computation can exist in universe B, but for > those in universe A to access the result, they need to perform the > computation again. Is this right?* > If I want an answer I must either calculate it again or establish a communication link between universe A and universe B. But you don't have to go to anything as exotic as separate universes to establish that simple fact; if you multiply 874 by 962 and get a answer and I want the answer too I can either calculate it again or ask you to communicate the answer to me; but BOTH processes involve matter that obeys the laws of physics. The fundamental problem is I know how to communicate with you but the only way to communicate with Plato's mathematical heaven is by a process that is absolutely identical to a calculation. And that means that the very concept of Plato's heaven is as unnecessary and pointless as the luminiferous aether . And that means I can't prove that either one doesn't exist but I can prove that both are silly. >> >> 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. >> > > *>So in your view, could this physical structure of matter and energy be > a platonic statically existing 4-dimensional structure?* > The space-time block universe is the most complex thing in, well, in the universe; how could it be simple, how could it be unchanging along all 4 dimensions?? If it were then the density of matter would be exactly the same at every 3D spacial coordinate and it would never change with respect to time, and the very concept of motion would not only be impossible it would be inconceivable because it wouldn't even be definable. Needless to say that is not what we observe. 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.
