On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:53 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:32 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> 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. > > Pure numbers may not correspond to point in time and space, but their relationships do. Relationships between pure numbers yield computations, and those computations correspond to anything that is computable. > > *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. > So if there is another universe out there, causally disconnected from us (as you presume there probably is), doesn't that blow a hole in your theory? Doesn't the fact that "John Clark is conscious of every point of time in his life, and none of those John Clark view points ceases to exist", already contradict your idea of change? > > > > 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. > > This is predicted and explained in both Bruno's and Markus's papers. The mathematical reality, as seen from the inside, appears much richer. > > *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. > "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." > > >> >> 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? > > People are convicted without there being any eye witnesses or direct evidence all the time. In those cases it requires indirect evidence and deduction to build the case. > > *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, > Why is that hard to understand? > 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. > This is explained well in Markus Muller's paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf Among the predictions he reached assuming only the existence of computations: - *The Big Bang:* - In both cases, Abby will identify a singular state in the past, where the universe was particularly “small” and “simple” in the algorithmic sense. If Abby reconstructs the previous history of her universe (the computational process giving rise to her asymptotic measure µ), she will see that complexity unfolded after this stage in a way that resembles an abstract computation according to simple probabilistic laws. Thus, she may call this initial state the “Big Bang”, and hypothesize that time had its beginning in this moment. This is a striking consistency with our actual physical observations. We will discuss further details of this in Section 11. - If she continues computing backwards to retrodict earlier and earlier states of her universe, she will typically find simpler and more “compact” states, with measures of entropy or algorithmic complexity decreasing — simply because she is looking at earlier and earlier stages of an unfolding computation43. At some point, Abby will necessarily arrive at the state that corresponds to the initial state of the graph machine’s computation (right after the machine U has read the prefix q), where simplicity and compactness are maximal. At this point, two cases are possible: either Abby’s method of computing backwards will cease to work; or Abby will retrodict a fictitious sequence of “states before the initial state”, typically with increasing complexity backwards in time [100]. - The reason is very similar to, say a classical coin tossing process. While the process itself has a very short description, the actual sequence of outcomes of, say, 10^9 coin tosses will typically have very high Kolmogorov complexity (namely, about 10^9 ). - *Addressing your point with changing matter of the brain being correlated to changing experience* - 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. - *Appearance of Physical Laws* - Observation 8.4 (Principle of persistent regularities). Computable regularities that were holding in the past tend to persist in the future. - *Appearance of Time* - In particular, we will see that our theory predicts (under the assumption just mentioned) that observers should indeed expect to see two facts which are features of our physics as we know it: first, the fact that the observer seems to be part of an external world that evolves in time (a “universe”), and second, that this external world seems to have had an absolute beginning in the past (the “Big Bang”). - *Probabilistic Outcomes but with Simple Laws* - “What I observe seems to be fundamentally nondeterministic; it seems that that there is irreducible randomness that governs my experience.” - “But it seems that this randomness is itself subject to simple laws, which I can write down in concise equations. I can feed these equations into a computer and use them to predict future observations quite successfully, even if only probabilistically.” He gets all of these results from straight computer science, considering what observers would see if indeed, all computations exist. Now imagine that Babbage completed his machine in the 1800s, and some eminent scientist in 1890 made all of the above predictions based on Babbage's machine. And then throughout the 1900s, to our great surprise, all of the predictions were confirmed, i.e. the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, etc. Would you not count that as evidence in favor of the theory that all computations exist? > > >> > *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? > (Provided above) > > > >> > (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? > Show a prediction it makes about our distribution of experience, our perceived age, our universe, etc. which is improbable under the theory, but is confirmed by evidence/observation. > Would it be OK if my evidence was as invisible as your evidence? > Sure. But I don't think the evidence above is invisible. We're talking about predictions of theories, not of the theories themselves (which of course are invisible). You can't point to a "law of physics" any more than I can point to you a non-material computation, or number theory. But what we can do is compare notes about what our theories predict, and see which has greater explanatory power, with fewer assumptions, while not being refuted by 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. > You said particles can be simulated in a previous e-mail. > 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. > Replace "numbers" with "computations" and your sentence doesn't hold. You keep injecting the word numbers. It is the truth concerning relations between numbers provides the platform for computations, just as it is the relations between electrons in a transistor that enable the computations, but you wouldn't confuse a computation performed by an intel chip with the electron, or with the transistor. > >> >> > *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. > > We covered this point already. > > *But didn't you accept the block universe view? * >> > > Yes I think it's true to a first approximation, but it ignores Quantum > Mechanics. > You get the block universe view with just special relativity, which is QM friendly. > > > *How do you resolve these two seemingly incompatible ideas?* >> > > A mind needs change. Anything outside the block universe can not change. > I think we are getting somewhere. Yes, the mind needs to change (from its internal point of view). But would you agree that the mind's substrate does not need to change? I.e., the mind could exist within what is objectively an unchanging object. > 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. > I thought you subscribed to the computational theory of mind. What you use to build a mind is irrelevant, so long as the computational or functional relationships are preserved. Under that view I don't see any relevance of the parts to the conscious mind. > > >> > *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. > You are describing exactly the world of mathematicians. See my post to Brent about axioms, and how we develop them over time. > > > 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. > Unless you happen to live in that game. > > > *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. > Your point? > > >> *> 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. > You are elevating physical material to the supreme explanation of everything, but I don't see your motivation for making such an assumption. Kids in school are taught the digits of Pi go on forever. But in your view they only go on so long as we can bother to build a computer to compute them. Do you not believe the next digit has a definite objective value before our computer happens upon it? What does this say about other universes out there where some alien civilization bothered to compute a little bit further than us? > > >>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. > Disproving the blue fish requires more than saying "but every fish I know is red!". Doubly so when the existence of blue fish explains some observed phenomena of our reality. > > >> *> 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. . > I think both of your assessments are wrong. See the predictions above to see how rich and useful of an idea this is as a TOE. I don't know any TOE which has been more successful at producing results, explaining why "quantum" etc., while assuming so little. If you know of any I am all ears. > > > *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"? > See above. > 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" > . > That's unreasonable. You might as well admit you have no intention of changing your mind or listening to the evidence. > > > *Metaphysics can and has been done scientifically. E.g. eternal >> inflation, string theory landscapes, many worlds, are arguably metaphysics.* >> > > Eternal inflation has observable consequences, > So does the theory that all computations exist. > 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; > If all computations exist, our universe should be ruled by simple laws that allow us to make only probabilistic predictions. (confirmed so far). Maybe you should have more faith in all computations than you have in eternal inflation. > 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. > You didn't answer the question. Can a non-quamtum computer in a branch that diverged from ours a few minutes ago DO anything or can't it? Can you become CEO of the largest computing company in the world by harnessing the computers in all the decohered branches of the many worlds? > > >>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. > > I thought we were talking about the foundations of objective reality (*are numbers primary or not*). Certainly observations are part of reality, and must be explained, and our theories should not predict things incompatible with our objective experience. 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.
