On 12/12/2018 5:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:04 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/12/2018 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2018, at 20:20, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
They are computations in the CT sense.
CT computations halt. A program that can just wander back an
forth at random doesn't halt.
A reversible computation can still halt. It doesn't have to be a never
ending circle, it just has to be possible to re-wind back to the
original state, in theory (by not throwing away information).
But the point is that there must be an entropic gradient to define which
way the computation goes if every step is reversible. Otherwise it
doesn't "go" anywhere.
All computations can be done reversibly.
OK. Here's my result, 1029394857. What two numbers did I add
to compute it?
Here you collapsed two operands down to one (you destroyed
information). Had you preserved either of the other operands as
outputs in the circuit, the question could be answered. Reversible
logic gates require as many bits of outputs as bits of inputs, and
must be defined with all outputs states having 1-to-1 mappings from
input states.
Read and write needs some energy, but is not part of the
computation,
A quantum computation stops when you read its output. A CT
computation must halt to provide and output...otherwise you can't
recognize an output (and there would be no Halting Problem).
They can halt. Halting is just a final state that when reached,
indicates the computation is done.
"Just" knowing when the calculation is done is essential.
Brent
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
