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
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 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 becaus
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
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: 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 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 wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch 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. ?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.
