Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Well, I think I have a better understanding now of the ideas leading me to
> start this thread - thanks to Bruno, Quentin and the other contributors.
> Moreover, I am leaning towards fundamentally changing my views on the
> implementation problem: if computationali
Peter Jones writes:
> There is a very impoertant difference between "computations do
> not require a physical basis" and "computations do not
> require any *particular* physical basis" (ie computations can be
> physical
> implemented by a wide variety of systems)
Yes, but any physical system can
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
>
>>There is a very impoertant difference between "computations do
>>not require a physical basis" and "computations do not
>>require any *particular* physical basis" (ie computations can be
>>physical
>>implemented by a wide variety of systems)
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
> > There is a very impoertant difference between "computations do
> > not require a physical basis" and "computations do not
> > require any *particular* physical basis" (ie computations can be
> > physical
> > implemented by a wide variety of s
Brent Meeker wrote:
> d the computations are implemented
> > anyway by virtue of their status as mathematical objects.
>
> Or by virtue of there being universes.
Something, anyway. You don't get implementation for free.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this me
Saibal Mitra writes:
> From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The real problem is not just that it is a philosophical speculation,
> > it is that it does not lead to any testable physical predictions.
> > The string theory landscape, even if finite, is far too large for
> > systematic explor
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Well, I think I have a better understanding now of the ideas leading me
to start this thread - thanks to Bruno, Quentin and the other
>> contributors. Moreover, I am leaning towards fundamentally changing my
views on the implementation problem: if computationali
Brent Meeker writes:
> > Yes, but any physical system can be seen as implementing any computation
> > with the appropriate
> > rule mapping physical states to computational states.
>
> I think this is doubtful. For one thing there must be enough distinct
> states. It's all very well
> to i
Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
> > There is a very impoertant difference between "computations do
> > > not require a physical basis" and "computations do not
> > > require any *particular* physical basis" (ie computations can be
> > > physical
> > > implemented by a wide variety of systems)
Colin,
the entire discussion is too much for me, I pick some remarks of yours and
ask only about them. I am glad to see that others are also struggling to
find better and more fitting words...
(I search for better fitting concepts as well to be expressed by those
better fitting wods).
You wrote
Thanks for giving a digested explanation of the argument. This paper
was discussed briefly on A-Void a few weeks ago, but I must admit to
not following the argument too well, nor RTFA.
My comment on the observer moment issue, is that in a Multiverse, the
measure of older observer moments is less
John M
>
> Colin,
> the entire discussion is too much for me, I pick some remarks of yours and
> ask only about them. I am glad to see that others are also struggling to
> find better and more fitting words...
> (I search for better fitting concepts as well to be expressed by those
> better fitti
12 matches
Mail list logo