On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:49 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12/12/2018 11:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:44 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/12/2018 5:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:04 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 12/12/2018 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11 Dec 2018, at 20:20, 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. >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> > It works the same way any other computer or computation would. There is > no magic to it. The only difference from conventional computers and > conventional logic gates is that it preserves enough information along the > way (during the computation) such that in principal given some Nth state, > you could work backwards to determine what the N-1th state was. > > For example, a "CCNOT" gate (or Toffoli gate > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toffoli_gate>) is a universal logic gate, > which takes in three input bits: a, b, c. And outputs "a", "b", and "c XOR > (a AND b)". > Basically it will invert c if both a and b are 1. Otherwise c is not > inverted. > > If you set c=0, then your CCNOT gate's output of c can be treated as "a > AND b". Your normal computation may only be interested in the "a AND b" > result from the circuit, and you can ignore the other output bits for the > purposes of your computation, but the distinction for reversibility is we > don't throw out "a" and "b" which would be done in a conventional AND gate. > Having both "a", "b", and the result, allows us to work backwards to > determine what the input bits (a, b, c) were. Thus no information has been > lost during the computation, and because the CCNOT is universal you can use > it to replicate the functionality of any logic circuit. > > > I understand the theory. But it is showing that the computation is* > logically* reversible. If it is also physically reversible, i.e. no > increase in entropy, then it will not have a direction and no computation > will be accomplished. In practice this avoided by "making a measurement" > at one end where the entropy is increased. But that is not part of the > reversible quantum evolution. > I suppose the question is a bit like a tree falling in the woods: "Does a reversible Turing machine that no one reads make a consciousness?" Bringing the discussion back to the original point, if the laws of physics are reversible, and if information in our universe cannot be destroyed, does that imply that it could be something simulated by a computer in a higher-order universe without leading to an increase in entropy in that higher-order universe? Might civilizations that simulate other universes prefer to simulate physical laws such as ours due to this feature? Perhaps another argument in favor of the simulation argument.. 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.
