On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:20 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12/11/2018 11:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:53 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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. > I am not sure about that. There is the concept of reversible Turing machines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing#Logical_reversibility Jason -- 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.
