On 12/11/2018 11:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:53 PM Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com
<mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:29 AM Brent Meeker
<meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/11/2018 12:31 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-6, Jason
wrote:
No one is refuting the existence of matter, only the
idea that matter is primary. That is, that matter is
not derivative from something more fundamental.
Jason
I can understand an (immaterial) computationalism (e.g.
*The universal numbers. From Biology to Physics.* Marchal
B [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993 ]) as
providing a purely informational basis for (thinking of)
matter and consciousness, but then why would *actual
matter* need to come into existence at all? Actual matter
itself would seem to be superfluous.
If actual matter is not needed for experientiality
(consciousness), and actual matter does no exist at all,
then we live in a type of simulation of pure
numericality. There would be no reason for actual matter
to come into existence.
If it feels like matter and it looks like matter and obeys
the equations of matter how is it not "actual" matter?
Bruno's idea is that consciousness of matter and it's
effects are all we can know about matter. So if the
"simulation" that is simulating us, also simulates those
conscious thoughts about matter then that's a "actual" as
anything gets. Remember Bruno is a theologian so all this
"simulation" is in the mind of God=arithmetic; and
arithmetic/God is the ur-stuff.
It's not just Bruno who reached this conclusion. from Markus
Muller's paper:
In particular, her observations do not fundamentally
supervene on this “physical universe”; it is merely a
useful tool to predict her future observations.
Nonetheless, this universe will seem perfectly real to
her, since its state is strongly correlated with her
experiences. If the measure µ that is computed within her
computational universe assigns probability close to one to
the experience of hitting her head against a brick, then
the corresponding experience of pain will probably render
all abstract insights into the non-fundamental nature of
that brick irrelevant.
Jason
What is the computer that running "her computational universe"?
The very same that powers the equations that bring life to our
universe as you see it evolve.
What is its power supply?
Power is only required to erase information, and that is only a
concept of the physical laws of this universe. Even the laws of our
universe permit the creation of computers which require no power to run.
See the bit about reversible computing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle (computations
that are reversible require no energy).
And they produce no results since they run both ways. They are not even
computations in the CT sense.
Brent
--
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.
