Re: Re: Re: Numbers in Space
Hi Craig Weinberg How does ideal spacetime differ from what physicists refer to as spacetime. Real spacetime can be integrated over dxdydzdt. Anyway, even a physical vacuum can contain things such as radio waves, light, intelligence, Platonia, etc. There is no such thing as nothing, IMHO. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/22/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 12:58:41 Subject: Re: Re: Numbers in Space On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:51:10 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Thwe ideal vacuum is still in spacetime. It's in ideal spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 11:27:56 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. It would not be Turing universal. If it isn't then that seems to me an argument for primitive physics. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc. I was going to do another post upping the ante from Numbers in Space to Numbers in Xpace (imaginary space). To me this is the fading qualia argument that could be a Waterloo for comp. The transition from Turing machines executed in matter to execution in space and then xpace would have to be consistent to support the claim that arithmetic is independent from physics. If that isn't the case, why not? What is different other than physical properties between matter, space, and xpace? I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the self-reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. I don't know what that means exactly but if I am getting the gist, it still doesn't tell me why it is easier for me to remember something in my mind than to offload my memories onto objects, places, times of the year, whatever. Why not make a Turing machine out of time that uses moments instead of tape and tape instead of numbers? It seems to me that the universality of UMs is wildly overstated. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp. So we can pretty much call comp magic then. It needs nothing whatsoever and can ultimately control anything from anywhere. provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the material hypostases. Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below our substitution
Re: Numbers in Space
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any functionis already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt Olympia. Not at all, the answer is easy here. In the big picture, that is arithmetic, nothing is done. The computations are already done in it. doing things is a relative internal notion coming from the first person perspectives. Also, Platonia does not really exist, nor God, as existence is what belongs to Platonia. Comp follows Plotinus on this, both God and Matter does not belong to the category exist (ontologically). They are epistemological beings. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. It would not be Turing universal. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc. I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the self- reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp. provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the material hypostases. Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below our substitution level. Bruno Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me. If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. So you are saying yes to the space doctor? The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the only way of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that if we really want to know the truth about mind body, we can only find that in the un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of experienced sense. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. I
Re: Numbers in Space
On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). Dear Bruno, I agree 100% with you. That the quantum vacuum is TU, is obvious to me. I think that Svozil has something written on this.. maybe or 't Hoft. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Only because we are trying to do things the classical way... ? Explain this to those who build the LHC. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I am not sure if that is possible because it seems to me that that requires the specification of an uncountable infinity. I don't see the problem. You might confuse Turing emulable and Turing recoverable. In the last case we take into account the first person indeterminacy, and comp already explains that it is uncountable. Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. But the numbers build an arithmetic body The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body. and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they can implement the UD. No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists like prime numbers exists. Primitively. Their dreaming is this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamlands The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I disagree. We can only formalize the mind, never the body, if we wish to never be inconsistent. We can't formalize neither the (1p) mind nor the body. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are algorithms hiding in a puppet. In that case comp is false. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Numbers in Space
Hi Jason Resch In the Platonic world space and time don't exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 01:19:04 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. ?hat we can use our minds to access the results. ? What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. ?he problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. ?he problem is learning their results. Jason ?? It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. ?ou are the result. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Numbers in Space
Hi Stephen P. King If by exist I mean physically exi,sts and by lives I mean nonphysically exists, Then Computers exist. Computer programs live. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 20:50:22 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Craig Hey Craig, What do you think physical computers actually are? universal machines using only empty space. But Nature hates a vacuum... -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Numbers in Space
Hi Stephen P. King Platonia doesn't exist, it lives. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 21:28:02 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of space. We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now? Hi Craig, We are! We just don't feel it... so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed? What is the speed of light? Same question! It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt Olympia. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. You are the result. Jason Jason, That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be explained! -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt Olympia. Not at all, the answer is easy here. In the big picture, that is arithmetic, nothing is done. The computations are already done in it. doing things is a relative internal notion coming from the first person perspectives. Also, Platonia does not really exist, nor God, as existence is what belongs to Platonia. Comp follows Plotinus on this, both God and Matter does not belong to the category exist (ontologically). They are epistemological beings. Bruno Dear Bruno, OK, but you are ignoring my question: How does the existence become decomposed such that there are epistemological beings? So far your explanation is focused on the representation in terms of arithmetics and I accept your reasonings: In the big picture, that is arithmetic, nothing is done. There is no action, no change, all that exists just is. But then what do we make of time? We can dismiss it as an illusion? But that would be just an evasion of the obvious question: Why does the illusion occur? I am interested in explanation that at least try to answer this question: How does the illusion persist? What might cause it? Why do special purpose computations occur such that we can identify physical systems with them? My proposal is to weaken the concept of Computational Universality a tiny bit and thus allow room for the possibility of an answer to the questions that I have. Consider this: What happens is there does *not* exist any physical system that can implement a particular computation X? Is it possible for us, humans, or any other sentient physical being to know anything about X, such that we might have some model of X that is faithfully representative? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. It would not be Turing universal. Dear Bruno, How so? What is the proof? Craig is allowing for N, + and *. So why not? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc. What do Integers represent? Are they just primitive objects with inherent properties? I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the self-reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. You lost us ... Eyes glaze over No explanation is being offered as to how the measure comes to be. I am asking you about the measure. Why do you avoid my questions? I will not stop until you answer me coherently! That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp. So all spaces are physical? What about a Hilbert space? Is it not a mathematical object? provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the material hypostases. Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below our substitution level. What determines the substitution level? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But the numbers build an arithmetic body The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body. and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they can implement the UD. No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists like prime numbers exists. Primitively. So the dreams exists like prime numbers exists. Primitively. and the dreams are of a non arithmetic body, thus a non arithmetic body exists primitively. How is this different from anything that I have tried to tell you of my ideas? We agree!! This is dual aspect monism! I used to call it process dualism, but realized that that working caused too much confusion. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are algorithms hiding in a puppet. In that case comp is false. No, it is not false. Only the strong version of step 8 is false. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. You are the result. Jason Jason, That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be explained! Does 38 have any factors? Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps? Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible answer. Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it, implement it or think it. They would be either true or false even if nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it. If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could even say the question Does program xyz contain conscious entities? is a mathematical question. If it is true, then there exist conscious entities. Your requirement that there be some real implementation for computation leads to an infinite regress. What real computer is our universe running on? Jason -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:16:19 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. Craig To understand a thing is to control a thing. Yes! Sort of. I have this whole concept of how motive participation evolves through sense in a linear, strategic way. Think of the panopticon perspective, where the control center is the hub of a wheel of cells which can be observed by the controllers. This metaphorically elevated position mirrors the physically elevated position, like a hilltop in battle, where the more terrain you can view, the more you can theoretically control the outcome of the battle strategically... However: You can still understand that you are going to get your ass kicked. Understanding gives you potential to control, and motive to control, but the execution of control requires...resources. Which means using your motives in a way which causes other beings to cause other beings to sympathize with your motives, leverage their own motives against rocks and sticks and high explosives, etc.. to be come more *persuasive*. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/YNIkpr1ouP8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. It would not be Turing universal. If it isn't then that seems to me an argument for primitive physics. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc. I was going to do another post upping the ante from Numbers in Space to Numbers in Xpace (imaginary space). To me this is the fading qualia argument that could be a Waterloo for comp. The transition from Turing machines executed in matter to execution in space and then xpace would have to be consistent to support the claim that arithmetic is independent from physics. If that isn't the case, why not? What is different other than physical properties between matter, space, and xpace? I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the self-reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. I don't know what that means exactly but if I am getting the gist, it still doesn't tell me why it is easier for me to remember something in my mind than to offload my memories onto objects, places, times of the year, whatever. Why not make a Turing machine out of time that uses moments instead of tape and tape instead of numbers? It seems to me that the universality of UMs is wildly overstated. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp. So we can pretty much call comp magic then. It needs nothing whatsoever and can ultimately control anything from anywhere. provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the material hypostases. Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below our substitution level. Why doesn't anything arithmetic need to be justified with computational hypostases? Craig Bruno Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me. If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since
Re: Re: Numbers in Space
Hi Craig Weinberg Thwe ideal vacuum is still in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-21, 11:27:56 Subject: Re: Numbers in Space On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. It would not be Turing universal. If it isn't then that seems to me an argument for primitive physics. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc. I was going to do another post upping the ante from Numbers in Space to Numbers in Xpace (imaginary space). To me this is the fading qualia argument that could be a Waterloo for comp. The transition from Turing machines executed in matter to execution in space and then xpace would have to be consistent to support the claim that arithmetic is independent from physics. If that isn't the case, why not? What is different other than physical properties between matter, space, and xpace? I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the self-reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. I don't know what that means exactly but if I am getting the gist, it still doesn't tell me why it is easier for me to remember something in my mind than to offload my memories onto objects, places, times of the year, whatever. Why not make a Turing machine out of time that uses moments instead of tape and tape instead of numbers? It seems to me that the universality of UMs is wildly overstated. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp. So we can pretty much call comp magic then. It needs nothing whatsoever and can ultimately control anything from anywhere. provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the material hypostases. Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below our substitution level. Why doesn't anything arithmetic need to be justified with computational hypostases? Craig Bruno Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I
Re: Numbers in Space
On 21 Sep 2012, at 16:24, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt Olympia. Not at all, the answer is easy here. In the big picture, that is arithmetic, nothing is done. The computations are already done in it. doing things is a relative internal notion coming from the first person perspectives. Also, Platonia does not really exist, nor God, as existence is what belongs to Platonia. Comp follows Plotinus on this, both God and Matter does not belong to the category exist (ontologically). They are epistemological beings. Bruno Dear Bruno, OK, but you are ignoring my question: How does the existence become decomposed such that there are epistemological beings? We agree that arithmetical truth is independent of us, or more formalistically we assume 0 s(0) ... and the law of addition and multiplication. From that, and only that, we proves the existence of the computations, and get notably all the dreams, as with comp we know that dreams, subjective experiences, needs to be associated to those computations. The epistemological beings appears in the content of those dreams, and recover, or not, sharable persistent epistemological realities. So far your explanation is focused on the representation in terms of arithmetics and I accept your reasonings: In the big picture, that is arithmetic, nothing is done. There is no action, no change, all that exists just is. But then what do we make of time? Time is easy, with comp, as we give an importance to processing, or successive manipulation. There is a variety of time since the start: the order 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... The UD time steps, The particular steps of each computations in the UD, etc. None give the physical time, as it needs to be extracted from the physics emerging on the dreams. We can dismiss it as an illusion? We better not. Immaterial does not mean illusion, unless you are fictionalist, in which case comp is meaningless. But that would be just an evasion of the obvious question: Why does the illusion occur? Comp explains this entirely. Numbers can already explains where the illusion comes from, and why the illusion has many incommunicable features. This *is* solved. I am interested in explanation that at least try to answer this question: How does the illusion persist? That is the difficult things. That is what I translated in arithmetic. That is the measure problem. Either comp gives a quantum machinery below our substitution level, or it fails. The material hypostases already show that the measure one obeys to quantum like logics, and we got an arithmetical quantization in which we can test if there are quantum gate at the universal dream bottom. What might cause it? Why do special purpose computations occur such that we can identify physical systems with them? My proposal is to weaken the concept of Computational Universality a tiny bit and thus allow room for the possibility of an answer to the questions that I have. CT makes the concept of Turing universality is one of the most solid epistemological concept ever ... (cf CT) Good luck. Consider this: What happens is there does not exist any physical system that can implement a particular computation X? All computations can be implemented in any Turing universal system. *Many* subparts of the known physics are Turing universal, so what you say is impossible. Is it possible for us, humans, or any other sentient physical being to know anything about X, such that we might have some model of X that is faithfully representative? We already know many things which are not computable. Recursion theory is mainly the study and classification of those non computable things. In math, the computable is both pro-eminent in the construction we do, and the non computable is majority in the ontology. For example the non computable functions from N to N are not enumerable, and the computable one are enumerable (even if not mechanically or computably enumerable (see my posts
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. You are the result. Jason Jason, That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be explained! Does 38 have any factors? Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps? Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible answer. Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it, implement it or think it. They would be either true or false even if nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it. Hi Jason, You are missing the point. There is the Truth and there is the ability to know of it. The former is immaterial, independent of any one of us. The latter is physical, we must work to have it. If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could even say the question Does program xyz contain conscious entities? is a mathematical question. If it is true, then there exist conscious entities. We have to be able to communicate... Your requirement that there be some real implementation for computation leads to an infinite regress. What real computer is our universe running on? The underlying Quantum's unitary transformation. Jason -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Numbers in Space
On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:51:10 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Thwe ideal vacuum is still in spacetime. It's in ideal spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-21, 11:27:56 *Subject:* Re: Numbers in Space On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. It would not be Turing universal. If it isn't then that seems to me an argument for primitive physics. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc. I was going to do another post upping the ante from Numbers in Space to Numbers in Xpace (imaginary space). To me this is the fading qualia argument that could be a Waterloo for comp. The transition from Turing machines executed in matter to execution in space and then xpace would have to be consistent to support the claim that arithmetic is independent from physics. If that isn't the case, why not? What is different other than physical properties between matter, space, and xpace? I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the self-reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*. I don't know what that means exactly but if I am getting the gist, it still doesn't tell me why it is easier for me to remember something in my mind than to offload my memories onto objects, places, times of the year, whatever. Why not make a Turing machine out of time that uses moments instead of tape and tape instead of numbers? It seems to me that the universality of UMs is wildly overstated. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp. So we can pretty much call comp magic then. It needs nothing whatsoever and can ultimately control anything from anywhere. provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the material hypostases. Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below our substitution level. Why doesn't anything arithmetic need to be justified with computational hypostases? Craig Bruno Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also
Re: Numbers in Space
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. You are the result. Jason Jason, That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be explained! Does 38 have any factors? Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps? Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible answer. Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it, implement it or think it. They would be either true or false even if nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it. Hi Jason, You are missing the point. There is the Truth and there is the ability to know of it. The former is immaterial, independent of any one of us. The latter is physical, we must work to have it. If you accept platonism then why do you always give Bruno trouble over there needing to be a physical universe in which to run the UD? If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could even say the question Does program xyz contain conscious entities? is a mathematical question. If it is true, then there exist conscious entities. We have to be able to communicate... This isn't hard to explain. Some programs contain multiple interacting entities. Your requirement that there be some real implementation for computation leads to an infinite regress. What real computer is our universe running on? The underlying Quantum's unitary transformation. Jason -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 21 Sep 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are algorithms hiding in a puppet. In that case comp is false. No, it is not false. Only the strong version of step 8 is false. All steps follows from comp. If something more is used in step 8: tell me what, but don't confuse a conclusion with an assumption, as you did before. I suggest a point: which is that step 8 uses: sup-phys + comp = 323. Most people up to now agree that this follows from comp. It is hard to formalize this, as sup-phys is hard to formalize by itself. Indeed you can easily build ad hoc theory of matter which contradicts this. Yet, when people effectively define such ad hoc notion of primitive matter, without magic, it becomes Turing emulable, and their argument becomes an argument either against comp, by making the magic non Turing emulable, or an argument for lowering down the level, not for the invalidity of sup-phys + comp = 323. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/21/2012 8:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. You are the result. Jason Jason, That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be explained! Does 38 have any factors? Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps? Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible answer. Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it, implement it or think it. They would be either true or false even if nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it. If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could even say the question Does program xyz contain conscious entities? is a mathematical question. If it is true, then there exist conscious entities. But a statement can be true, Sherlock Holmes live on Baker Street. without implying any existence. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Numbers in Space
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0tmx4Q3p9G4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of space. We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now? so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed? It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2cTxWQ1j_V0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me. If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. So you are saying yes to the space doctor? The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the only way of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that if we really want to know the truth about mind body, we can only find that in the un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of experienced sense. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. I can behave respectfully to a puppet too, but I feel hypocritical because I wouldn't change places with them for any reason. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/BUBSbCUjtbgJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Craig Hey Craig, What do you think physical computers actually are? universal machines using only empty space. But Nature hates a vacuum... -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of space. We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now? Hi Craig, We are! We just don't feel it... so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed? What is the speed of light? Same question! It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt Olympia. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). Dear Bruno, I agree 100% with you. That the quantum vacuum is TU, is obvious to me. I think that Svozil has something written on this.. maybe or 't Hoft. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Only because we are trying to do things the classical way... Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I am not sure if that is possible because it seems to me that that requires the specification of an uncountable infinity. Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. But the numbers build an arithmetic body and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they can implement the UD. Their dreaming is this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamlands The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I disagree. We can only formalize the mind, never the body, if we wish to never be inconsistent. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are algorithms hiding in a puppet. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Craig Hey Craig, What do you think physical computers actually are? universal machines using only empty space. But Nature hates a vacuum... Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/22EYmnKtf7UJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:10:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. Exactly, and I was trying to show why. Without that resource cost, there is no reason for anything to have a cost and no reason to leave Platonia. Castles in the clouds ahoy! Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3hD7s6xamHoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. Hey! Do you mean like a measure with nothing to rule on? Or a nothing without a measure? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) Space is the only resource needed. Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me. If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. So you are saying yes to the space doctor? YES! I do! Over and over and over and over! The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the only way of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that if we really want to know the truth about mind body, we can only find that in the un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of experienced sense. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. I can behave respectfully to a puppet too, but I feel hypocritical because I wouldn't change places with them for any reason. How would you know that it happened? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. Craig To understand a thing is to control a thing. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. You are the result. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
