Am Mo, 15. Aug 2022, um 14:45, schrieb John Clark: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:07 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> __ >>> >> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram >> >> *> I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I bought >> his book "A New Kind of Science" when it came out, which is also beautiful >> and inspiring.* > > Me too, that book is on my bookshelf only about 10 feet away from me right > now. > >> *> We are physical beings existing within the laws of physics. It could be >> that there is a larger computational reality, and that our universe and the >> laws of physics are "local" to the "sector" of the computation that we >> inhabit. We are experiencing this computational reality from the inside.* > > Yes we could be part of a computer simulation, but the computer simulating us > must be operating according to physical law, unless it is also a simulation. > But unless it's turtles all the way down eventually you're going to hit the > bedrock of physical reality.
This is the case if the physical laws that we observe are universal across all possible universes, but it could also be that the laws of physics that we observe are a local feature of a much wider reality / computation. If some form of Platonism is correct, it could be that what we call "the laws of physics" are just a structural feature of a set of mathematical forms that we are "observing from the inside". In this sort of metaphysics, being "inside of a simulation" loses its meaning. It could be true and not true at the same time. What I mean is: this exact same state of affairs that you/I are observing from the first person could be instantiated in a supercomputer in planet Zobolox one trillion years from now, and also in a simulation inside a simulation in another distant galaxy in the distant past. It would just be an atemporal thing, like a number. In which simulation is the number 1243234? > > >> *> The tricky thing, that Jason expanded on better than me, is that the >> outcomes of computations preexist,* > > The trouble is if all correct computations exist in some sort of platonic > heaven then all incorrect computations exist there too, you need physics to > tell the difference. If you have 2 rocks and then find 3 more you can make a > one to one correspondence between the rocks and the fingers of your hand, but > if you have 2 rocks and only find 2 more you cannot. Or physics could be an emergent property of consistency between computations. > >> *> in the sense that the outcome will be the same independently of how, when >> or where the computation is performed. We might need a physical computer to >> find out that 12345 * 67890 = 838102050, but it was already and it always >> has been and will be the case that 12345 * 67890 = 838102050 (by definition >> of the natural numbers and multiplication).* > > But you needed a physical computer or a physical brain to figure that out. If > platonic heaven contains everything that is true it also contains everything > that is false, and there are many more false things than true things (that's > why science is so difficult) so platonic Heaven is a pretty uninteresting > place because it is so dense with things that are untrue. It might be that the sort of conscious state and perceptual activity that we experience correspond to the part of the platonic Heaven that is self-consistent. I am not saying that these things are true. I am only trying to point out to you that you are assuming a very specific metaphysics. You assume that the sort of reality defined by our observable physical laws is the ultimate reality. And since you, like me, are a strong believer in Darwinism, we don't even have to go into the metaphysical. You might also want to consider that there is no reason for evolution to provide us with direct access to reality. It might also be the case that some illusion is a better adaptation. Donald Hoffman goes as far as claiming that the most likely situation is that we evolved to perceive such an illusion. Are you familiar with his ideas? > Meaning needs contrast. Michelangelo's David was carved from a single huge > block of marble that was a 100 million years old, but it would be silly to > say David was 100 million years old and Michelangelo did nothing but unpack > it from the marble that was not part of David. I agree, and I would add that meaning is observer-dependent. Meaning is a property of human minds, not of external reality. I do agree that I am able to construct meaning because of all the things that I am not. If I was everything, I would be nothing and no meaning would be possible for me. Telmo > And to make a real calculation rather than a pretend toy one you have to > differentiate the correct from the incorrect, you not only have to mention > the correct answer you have to make it clear that all the other answers, and > there are an infinite number of them, are wrong. And for that you need a > physical machine. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > wpr > >> > > > -- > 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/CAJPayv16pTwqNRGuTFJ%2B12_QKFcKR__Yw-P9mDD0S4sAwMudNA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv16pTwqNRGuTFJ%2B12_QKFcKR__Yw-P9mDD0S4sAwMudNA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/f793078a-33ef-47db-89ad-bb1f2919c166%40www.fastmail.com.
