On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:32 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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. >> > > > Special Relativity implies all points in time are equally real, > Relativity says space and time are intimately related but it does not say that all points in the time dimension are equal because they correspond to different points in the spatial dimensions. The trouble with pure numbers is they don't correspond to any points in time or space and there is nothing more fundamental to our subjective experience than time and space. > > *If all points in time exist then the universe doesn't change. * > If we're standing outside of time then obviously nothing can change in time, but we are most certainly not standing outside of time and there is no visible evidence anything is, but it's super easy to find lots of invisible evidence to support that idea or to support any other idea. > I never said numbers see time. > Fine, but we can see time, so there must be more to us than numbers because we can do something numbers can't. > *But programs can.* > Not unless it's running on a computer they can't! I think programmers sometimes get so involved with their craft that they forget software is only half of what you need to make a calculation. > >> 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. >> > > *> It can. You are using an overly constrained method of science which > depends on your vision. * > It is in the nature of science to be constrained, Feynman describe it as speculation in a straitjacket, and the first and most obvious restraint is that invisible evidence is not acceptable. Would you be OK with convicting someone of a crime and sending him to prison if it was all based on invisible evidence? > *We can't see beyond the Hubble volume, * > And it's easy to understand why we can't see beyond the Hubble volume, but it's very hard to understand why we can't detect non-material Turing machines if they exist, and if they are responsible for our consciousness it's even harder to understand why a change in the matter in our brain changes our consciousness and a change in our consciousness changes the matter in our brain. > > *nor prove that anything exists beyond it, but the conclusions of > testable theories are that there is stuff beyond the horizon, so we ought > to believe in it. * > Modern cosmological theories make many predictions some testable some not, if all the testable predictions turn out to be correct then, I won't say we must believe the untestable ones too but it would be reasonable to treat them with respect. But your mystical non-material Turing Machine theory makes no correct predictions that are testable that non-mystical theories can't. And it makes some predictions that are manifestly untrue, such as a bullet to the brain will not effect intelligence or consciousness. *> Likewise, the small amount of evidence we have points toward > arithmetical realism as the basis of physics* > Like what? > > (it has passed several tests without being refuted). > What sort of evidence would I need to have for you to say the mystical invisible non-material Turing machine theory has been refuted? Would it be OK if my evidence was as invisible as your evidence? > > I don't know why you object so strongly to it when you have presented > zero counter evidence. > There is plenty of counter evidence. Particles can do computations but computations can't do particles. A change in the matter in our brain changes our consciousness and a change in our consciousness changes the matter in our brain. And our consciousness can't change numbers and numbers can't change our consciousness. > > > *What about hypothetical analogous forms of "matter and energy" that > exist in other string theory universes with different laws of physics? > Could one build a computer using their equivalents of "matter and energy"? > What are the bare necessities, as you envisage, for building a computer?* > The bare necessity for a computer is that whatever its made of it must have the ability to change, and pure numbers don't change. > *But didn't you accept the block universe view? * > Yes I think it's true to a first approximation, but it ignores Quantum Mechanics. > *How do you resolve these two seemingly incompatible ideas?* > A mind needs change. Anything outside the block universe can not change. A point of view needs a mind. Therefore there is no point of view outside the universe looking back at it and mind and point of view are what we are discussing. >> A photon is a particle and it contains energy not numbers. >> > > *> Everything about it can be described in terms of numbers.* > Except for the particle's velocity at any point in space and its energy at any instant in time. And space and time play a key part, perhaps THE key part, to our subjective experience. > > *There is no proof photons, or any particle for that matter, has ant > existence beyond the numbers/information necessary to describe it.* > Physics isn't mathematics, it doesn't have proofs it has theories. We accept a theory that fits the facts until a new theory comes along that fits the facts even better, then we abandon the old theory and embrace the new one. No physical theory gives us the unvarnished truth but some theories are less wrong than others. > The Game of Life computer (doesn't need photon, doesn't need matter, it > only needs the game of life). > An invisible game that can't DO anything isn't much of a game, it's not much of anything. > *Different universes don't causally interact. However we can simulate > other them to access information about them. This is what we do when we run > our material computers in this universe* > And we can also use our our material computers in this universe to simulate Harry Potter's school at Hogwarts, and that is exactly what they did in the movies. > *> Where are all of the trillions of yottabytes of the first 10^36 digits > of Pi stored? * > If, as seems likely, space and time are not infinitely divisible and the entire universe lacks the computational resources to calculate the first 10^36 digits of PI then it would be meaningless to say PI has 10^36 digits. In fact if space is not continuous then a circle does not exist if we use the standard definition of a circle. >>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. >> > > *> Pointing out a hundred red fish does not disprove the existence of a > blue fish.* > But it certainly disproves the idea that all fish are blue, and that's important because we're the red fish. > *> Regarding me providing an example of computations doing matter energy, > this is suggested by the theory presented by Bruno and also by Markus > Muller which has survived several tests. * > Bruno's theory can't even survive the simple test of explaining who the personal pronouns that play such a vital part in his "proof" refer to; and Muller tries to make the case that there is no objective reality, and that is irrelevant as we're talking about subjective reality. . > *it is a conclusion of a refutable theory which has not yet been refuted* > I ask again, what evidence could I bring that would cause you to say "yeah you got me, my idea is refuted"? And before you ask me in return the same question I will tell you: if you became CEO of The Mystical Invisible Non-material Turing Machine Corporation and a week later you became the richest most powerful man in the history of the world I would say "yeah you got me, my idea is refuted". > *Metaphysics can and has been done scientifically. E.g. eternal > inflation, string theory landscapes, many worlds, are arguably metaphysics.* > Eternal inflation has observable consequences, if it's true it should have produced gravitational waves that would cause a subtle variation in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation; about 5 years ago people thought a radio telescope at the south pole had found exactly that, but it turned out to be a false alarm. But they're still looking and telescopes are getting better so in a few years we should be able to rule it in or rule it out. As for string theory, it has produced some interesting mathematics but even its fans admit it's not a scientific theory, at least not yet, because it makes no observable predictions. And the predictions of Many Worlds are just as good as the predictions of Copenhagen and of Shut Up And Calculate, which you use is a matter of personal preference. >>> *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. >> > > > *So according to you, a computer in one of those other branches* [...] > No! I'm not talking about an observer in another branch in the multiverse, I'm talking about an observer that is not in any branch in the multiverse, I'm talking about the point of view of an observer OUTSIDE the entire universe looking back at it, in other words I'm talking about the point of view of an observer that can not exist. >>Do you agree a program counter describes the electrical charge inside a >> silicon microchip within the computer that is running the program? >> > > > *Only for certain architectures* > In any computer architecture in which all the data outputs are not invisible. > > Matter and energy don't change, it is only from your conscious > perspective that they do. > My conscious perspective was the thing under discussion was conscious perspective. 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.
