On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
*>you make this error when you say only matter and energy can perform > computations, because those are the only computations you have seen.* > Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a calculation other than the physical sort, and nobody has even made a hypothesis about how a non-physical calculation might work nor explain how it would only produce correct answers and not incorrect ones. The existence of unicorns is far more plausible than the existence of non-physical calculations. *>You are presuming many things, all of which are quite dubious. For > example, that:* > *1. That Intel has discovered everything that is physically possible.* > *2. Intel has discovered everything in reality.* > I do presume that Intel has not discovered something that is physically impossible. > *>3. That Intel has publicly disclosed everything it knows.* > If Intel had discovered how to make non-physical computations I am quite certain we would have heard about it and the company would not continue to build $10,000,000,000 Silicon chip fabrication plants. > *4. That Intel could build devices that can access the results of > computations made in other realities/realms/universes.* > No, I presume that Intel, could NOT access the results of non-physical computations made in other realities, or to say the same thing in different words I presume that non-physical computations don't work worth a damn. > *5. That Intel could profitably build devices* > Build? Device? It's non-physical so there is nothing to build and there is no device. As for profitability, you can't do much better than zero manufacturing costs. > *>1. So what is the difference between a platonic computation and one that > occurs physically in a physical universe that is inaccessible to us?* > One works for us and one doesn't. One we know certainly exists and the other we will never know for certain if it does or not, although we will know that if it does exist the calculation was done physically. *>>>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, >> > > *>Who said it was simple?* > You did, you said "Change is an illusion". If a 3-D object does not change along any of its 3 spacial dimensions then it is very simple spatially, if it is static and will stay that way for eternity then the 4-D space-time object is also very simple. If all 4 dimensions continue to infinity then that infinite object would be the ultimate in simplicity, the only thing that might rival it in that regard would be nothing, and the two would be related. The best definition of "nothing" I know of is infinite unbounded homogeneity 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
