On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:37 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:48 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> But he wasn't smart enough to immediately reject the notion of >> computation without physical execution on a computer.* >> > > Probably because Marvin Minsky didn't think he was talking to somebody > like Bruno or you and some things in a conversation don't need to be > spelled out because they are a given. I've heard him say a simulated > world running on a computer (made of matter that obeys the laws of physics) > must exist if the word "exist" is to have any meaning, and I've heard him > say (5 min 50 sec in) that even if the electronic computer is turned off if > a human looks at the computer's program his physical brain (that is made of > matter and obeys the laws of physics) can work out what will happen next. > But if you're talking about a program that is not running on a computer and > nobody has even thought of it (6 min 25 sec in) he said "that's where I > think we have to stop" because if you don't then the word "existence" makes > no sense and everything is trivial. > From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJwzVD3jEs&t=4m54s (4:58) Minsky: It's a serious question we don't know that we exist because *we might be a program running on a computer* or *maybe we're just what a program would do if the computer were turned on* and *it's not even running* because it has the same logical possibilities there's only given that set of rules there's only one thing that could happen after each other thing that could happen after each other thing *so maybe this is just a possible sequence of actions in that computer*. Kuhn: But how could we not be turned on even if we're a simulation because I I have a cognitive sense about me as I assume you do. Minsky: Well imagine a program that's running on a very simple old-fashioned computer and if you put a number in it adds two to it and then it adds two to it again and it just runs so if you say five it says seven nine eleven thirteen fifteen... right okay suppose you don't turn it on but you just look at the program and you say what if I started that program with five and the answer is oh well then it would say seven nine eleven thirteen fifteen okay suppose the program is a complete description of the processes in a human mind then instead of turning it on you just say what would it think so first *it could be a program that's running on a computer* second *it could be a program that some programmer is just thinking about* third *it could be a program that nobody's even thought of* just one of the possible programs and *that's where I think we have to stop that that's the only kind of existence that makes sense* because the others are trivial it's the process itself that's the real thing and doesn't have to exist in any ordinary sense it's just possible. Kuhn: So so you're you're defining real as possible. Anything possible is real but there's no independent sense of reality. Minsky: Yes so I wouldn't use the word real at all I think it's obsolete and unnecessary and, however, it makes sense to talk about what's happening in this universe *which is the one that we're stuck in*. Kuhn: So to ask the question what what is what stuff is is real you you don't you don't even want you you can't even answer that question. Minsky: No I'd say to say that this button is real is to say it's in this universe that we're in *to say that the universe is real makes no sense at all it's just possible*. (Emphasis mine) However trivial the word existence was to Minsky, he believed that "this" the reality he found himself in, could be the result of a computer programming that was not even running, just because it is a set of logical possibilities. To me, this sounds much closer to what Bruno describes, our being computations in arithmetical realism, then it is to your dictum that only physical computers cab do anything, and only if they're turned on and change and use energy. He says "that's where we have to stop" not because it doesn't make any sense, he explicitly says the opposite, saying "that's the only kind of existence that makes sense". > > And If you equate "possible" with "real" then the word becomes "obsolete > and unnecessary". So if you want to make sense you've got to talk about > what's happening in this universe. He said (9 min 30 sec in ) you can write > a small computer program that can write every possible computer program > (obviously including programs that say 2+2=5), > You can write a program that outputs the string "2 + 2 = 5", but you'll never find a program that outputs a proof of 2 + 2 = 5 in any consistent and sound system of axioms. > it's true at that point he didn't specifically say that small program > would have to be running of a computer or be read by a person to actually > *do* that, or *do* anything at all, but I think that's clearly implied. > No he says the opposite, he said it could be a program no one has ever thought of. I read Minsky as saying any possible program could be a program someone finds themselves stuck in, and it need not be run on a computer, nor even thought about, for that to happen. > I've certainly never heard him say you can make a computation without a > physical computer or a physical person somewhere along the line. > > "first it could be a program that's running on a computer second it could be a program that some programmer is just thinking about third it could be a program that nobody's even thought of just one of the possible programs and that's where I think we have to stop that that's the only kind of existence that makes sense because the others are trivial it's the process itself that's the real thing and doesn't have to exist in any ordinary sense it's just possible." 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgR%2BK2E8Q3jY0_WHuZc2hc0yaJByJ4XCW-5%3DVOM3886og%40mail.gmail.com.
