On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 09:40:32PM -0700, Liz R wrote: > Well, exactly. It's Peano or whatever, so a small subset. Bruno and Tegmark > have this idea - I find Tegmark easier to follow personally - that because > physics is possibly isomorphic to some set of equations that describe reality, > Occam suggests that we don't actually need reality to exist, only the > equations. >
It is more that whatever foundational basis of reality is, so long as it is Turing complete, a computationlist mind cannot distinguish it from any other Turing complete substrate. It is almost assuredly not the reality we see. In another sense, our reality supervenes on all possible universal Turing machines. The question of what is the foundational reality has no answer - epistemologically equivalent to asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/20240912063919.GA2031%40zen.
