On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The block universe changes along the time dimension and special >> relativity deals with time, but the number 3 never changes with time and >> has nothing to do with it. >> > > *>Then you agree that there can be an objectively static object,* > Static with respect to what dimension? The block universe is a mathematical 4D object constructed in 1 dimension of time and 3 dimensions of space that follows Non-Euclidean geometry, and it changes in time and it changes in space, if it didn't there would be no details in the universe and everything would be a even unchanging fog. > *and that if we proceed through it in some dimension some view of it > changes.* > It may be implicit but the word "change" only has meaning if it's relative to some dimension, and if we're talking about consciousness there is no dimension more important than time. And unlike us numbers can't see time so if we are to have any hope of understanding consciousness we must look elsewhere. > *How is this different from a platonic computation, along which you can > view the state of the machine at individual steps?* > The difference is with a platonic computer you can NOT view the state of the machine at individual steps or view anything else about it either, and the scientific method can not provide a single scrap of evidence that the machine even exists. >>What are computations but the descriptions of particle's motion? >> Particles can do computations but computations can't do particles. >> > > > *How are the motions of "really real" particles different from the > motions of particles in a simulation of particles? * > The simulated particle relies on a computer made of matter for its existence and, unless we're living in a simulation, real particles don't. And if we are in a simulation then the computer that is simulating us must be made of real matter because even there numbers can't change, only matter/energy can. > *> You believe a simulation of a conscious mind still results in > consciousness, don't you?* > Of course. > *I think you are being inconsistent here.* > It would be inconsistent if personal identity were a noun but it's not, its an adjective. I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a johnkclarkian way, if the pattern of electrical charges inside a computer are organized in a johnkclarkian way then that is John K Clark. > *If change is an illusion,* > When talking about the nature of consciousness that word should never be used because it is a total cop out and explains nothing. > > *that illusion can exist within the conscious minds implemented in > platonic computations as well.* > It's not just consciousness, NOTHING can exist inside the mind of a platonic computer unless something changes, and it only has numbers to work with or it wouldn't be platonic so nothing can change. > >>> Think of consecutively computed states in the Game of Life, for >>> example. >>> >> >> >>Bad example. There is no memory in the Game of Life, >> > > > *I picked the example on purpose. Game Of Life is Turing Complete.* > I know, I've mentioned that fact on this list many many times; it means if you organize matter according to the rules determined by the game of life then that matter can compute anything that can be computed. > You can build Turing Machines in the Game of Life, so you can build > systems with memories > NO! You can't store any memories in the game, if I show you a particular Life pattern you could figure out its next state but there is no way in general you or anybody else could figure out what it's previous pattern was because there just isn't any information about that stored inside the pattern. When the game is run memories of a previous state in the game are stored *outside* of the game in silicon memory chips that are part of the computer running the Life program. > *Likewise with out universe, as the quantum erasure experiment shows, or > even just the single photon interferometer experiment.* A photon is a particle and it contains energy not numbers. >>And the Game of Life needs either a biological brain or a electronic >> computer for the game to change, that is to say for it to DO anything, and >> both brains and computers are made of matter and obey physics. > > > *> False, see above. * See what above? *> You can have a non-biological, non-electronic computer built within the > "physics" of the Game of Life.* Then do so and become the richest and most powerful man the world has ever known before this month is over. > *This computer could simulate a mind with consciousness. No electrons > or photons are needed. Just a lot of gliders and glider guns, and other > such structures. All built from very simple rules.* The first program I ever wrote was a Game of Life program, but before those gliders and glider guns could DO anything they needed 2 things, my brain to write the program and a computer to run it on, and both those things are made of matter and both obey the laws of physics. > >> For me to compare my present state I need a record of it , and that >> means my previous state must have somehow changed something that I can read >> now. But my previous state had only numbers to work with so which number >> did it change, is 3 no longer 3? All I want is for you to tell me of >> something other than mass/energy that can change. > > > *> All you need to support an experience of change is a memory that > contains information about an older and a more recent state. * I agree, but if it's not mass/energy what has changed so that is has recorded that information in you mystical nonmaterial platonic Turing Machine? *> The value of a variable in a computation may change from one >> computational step to the next.* >> > True, and that's why when I make a long calculation I need a scratch pad to write down the results of one part of it so I remember it while I work on some other part of the calculation, but a scratch pad is made of matter and it took me energy to change it by writing on it, but you have neither matter or energy all you have to work with is numbers. So what is your scratchpad made of and how do you change it? *> What keeps track of the fact that 2+2=4? Or any of the other infinite > facts in mathematics? * The only place information can be stored, in matter; in this case in the arrangement of atoms in my head and in the arrangement of atoms in many grade school textbooks. The atoms in the textbooks can not change their atomic arrangement but the atoms in my brain can; although they won't change that particular arrangement unless I suffer some sort of grievous brain damage. > >> You're simply asserting the very thing you're trying to prove. Nothing >> gets executed and nothing yields anything without matter/energy. > > > *> "You're simply asserting the very thing you're trying to prove." -> > "**Nothing > gets executed and nothing yields anything without matter/energy."* > The situation is not symmetrical. I can provide countless examples of matter/energy doing computations but you can not provide a single example of computations doing matter/energy. > *You are trying to use experimentalism/personal experience to do > metaphysics (talk about things outside of physics). *It's the wrong tool > for the job, and may explain why you have been stuck for so many years. I am trying to use the scientific method, if metaphysics is outside of that then that explains why it has not advanced one inch in the last 2500 years. > *Do you believe everything in reality is causally connected * In a word no. It's true that if Many Worlds is correct then a observer outside the multiverse looking back on it would see every event having a cause but logically such a observer can not exist and the view from a nonexistent point of view is self contradictory. >> All that could indeed happen if the program was executed on a computer, >> but it it's not all you'll see is a inert sequence of squiggles printed on >> a paper that never changes and is unable to DO anything. > > > *> Define "do".* No. Definitions are made of words so if I were to *DO* as you request you would then demand another definition of at least one of those words which would also be made of words and we'd go on like that forever. So this is what I suggest you *DO* to fill this surprising gap in your vocabulary, reread this sentence and the preceding one and puzzle out the meaning of the word from the context, that is after all how you first learned language as a small child, you didn't learn to talk from definitions in dictionaries you learned by examples. *> Do you agree an execution trace of a program changes along the dimension > of the program counter?* Do you agree a program counter describes the electrical charge inside a silicon microchip within the computer that is running the program? > >> If X is a pure number then you'd better hope nobody can change it >> because if they did then mathematics would not only become useless it would >> be ridiculous. And without change you can't have memory and without memory >> you can't make a calculation and without calculation you can't have >> intelligence or consciousness. Fortunately for us numbers can't change but >> one thing can, matter/energy. > > > > *They don't though.* I don't know if you mean numbers can change or that matter/energy can't, and I don't know which is more ridiculous. 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.
