subject:"The Computing Spacetime"

Re: The Computing Spacetime

2012-01-21 Thread Joseph Knight

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> Stephen, Ronald,
>>
>> The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from the
>> argument that any digital physics is bound to be unsuccessful on the
>> mind-body problem by being still physicalist. The body problem is a problem
>> of computer science, that is arithmetic, once we bet that observer are
>> Turing emulable, as they should if the physics is digital.
>>
>> If the universe is a computation, then comp is true. But comp implies
>> that the universe cannot be a computation (by UDA).
>
>
> Could you explain this a little bit? I didn't get that from my reading of
> the UDA
>
>
> I suppose you grasped well the sixth first steps.
>
> Consider yourself in front of a running UD, and the "protocol" is that it
> will never stop. Suppose you drop a pen. To predict what you will feel is
> determined by *all* computations in the UD's work going through your
> states. So to predict exactly what you will feel, you cannot use one
> computation, but an infinity of them. This is a priori non computable.
> Even if it is computable (like if ONE computation multiplies so much that
> it get a measure near one), we know that there are other computations, so,
> this can only be 1 - epsilon, and the exact decimal will still need an
> infinite computation, even if much shorter computation provides excellent
> approximations. But in principle, your exact future, even the "physical"
> first person sharable, is not given by one computation, but, below your
> substitution level, all of them. You can't compute that. And he phyical
> laws are just describing your normal histories, and the nomality can only
> come on the "winning computations" in the limit. Phycics might remain
> arithmetical, but certainly well above Sigma_1 (the computable).
> Tell me if this helps.
>

Yes - thanks!


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> So the universe is a computation implies that the universe is not a
>> computation. So the universe is not a computation, whatever it can be. This
>> defeat Finkelstein, Schmidhuber, Fredkin, and all attempts to conceive the
>> physical universe as a computation, or output of a computation.
>
>
>> This does not mean that the paper does not have interesting ideas on the
>> unification of known forces in physics, and that "quantum graphity" might
>> be a good idea, but if correct, such idea have to be recovered from the
>> (more ambitious) attempt to get a unification of both qualia and quanta
>> (consciousness and matter). The authors have still not integrate the
>> mind-body problem. We are still much in advance on this list :)
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Jan 2012, at 14:53, ronaldheld wrote:
>>
>>  I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
>>> I have just started to read it.,
>>>Ronald
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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+unsubscribe@**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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Knight
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everythin

Re: The Computing Spacetime

2012-01-20 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote:

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

Stephen, Ronald,

The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly
from the argument that any digital physics is bound to be
unsuccessful on the mind-body problem by being still physicalist.
The body problem is a problem of computer science, that is
arithmetic, once we bet that observer are Turing emulable, as they
should if the physics is digital.

If the universe is a computation, then comp is true. But comp
implies that the universe cannot be a computation (by UDA).

Could you explain this a little bit? I didn't get that from my
reading of the UDA

I suppose you grasped well the sixth first steps.

Consider yourself in front of a running UD, and the "protocol" is that
it will never stop. Suppose you drop a pen. To predict what you will
feel is determined by *all* computations in the UD's work going
through your states. So to predict exactly what you will feel, you
cannot use one computation, but an infinity of them. This is a priori
non computable.
Even if it is computable (like if ONE computation multiplies so much
that it get a measure near one), we know that there are other
computations, so, this can only be 1 - epsilon, and the exact decimal
will still need an infinite computation, even if much shorter
computation provides excellent approximations. But in principle, your
exact future, even the "physical" first person sharable, is not given
by one computation, but, below your substitution level, all of them.
You can't compute that. And he phyical laws are just describing your
normal histories, and the nomality can only come on the "winning
computations" in the limit. Phycics might remain arithmetical, but
certainly well above Sigma_1 (the computable).

Tell me if this helps.

Bruno

So the universe is a computation implies that the universe is not a
computation. So the universe is not a computation, whatever it can
be. This defeat Finkelstein, Schmidhuber, Fredkin, and all attempts
to conceive the physical universe as a computation, or output of a
computation.

This does not mean that the paper does not have interesting ideas on
the unification of known forces in physics, and that "quantum
graphity" might be a good idea, but if correct, such idea have to be
recovered from the (more ambitious) attempt to get a unification of
both qualia and quanta (consciousness and matter). The authors have
still not integrate the mind-body problem. We are still much in
advance on this list :)

Bruno

On 18 Jan 2012, at 14:53, ronaldheld wrote:

I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
I have just started to read it.,
Ronald

--
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.

--
Joseph Knight

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

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: The Computing Spacetime

2012-01-20 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote:

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

Stephen, Ronald,

If the universe is a computation, then comp is true. But comp
implies that the universe cannot be a computation (by UDA).

Could you explain this a little bit? I didn't get that from my
reading of the UDA

I am busy today, and will explain this asap. Normally this should be
easy, and it probably means that you are not taking the hypothesis
(comp), or some UDA steps literally enough. Note also that I meant
"comp implies that the physical universe cannot be necessarily a
computation. Thanks for your patience. I prefer to answer at ease,
instead of being too short or unclear.

Bruno

On 18 Jan 2012, at 14:53, ronaldheld wrote:

I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
I have just started to read it.,
Ronald

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

--
Joseph Knight

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: The Computing Spacetime

2012-01-19 Thread Joseph Knight

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Stephen, Ronald,
>
> The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from the
> argument that any digital physics is bound to be unsuccessful on the
> mind-body problem by being still physicalist. The body problem is a problem
> of computer science, that is arithmetic, once we bet that observer are
> Turing emulable, as they should if the physics is digital.
>
> If the universe is a computation, then comp is true. But comp implies that
> the universe cannot be a computation (by UDA).


Could you explain this a little bit? I didn't get that from my reading of
the UDA


> So the universe is a computation implies that the universe is not a
> computation. So the universe is not a computation, whatever it can be. This
> defeat Finkelstein, Schmidhuber, Fredkin, and all attempts to conceive the
> physical universe as a computation, or output of a computation.


> This does not mean that the paper does not have interesting ideas on the
> unification of known forces in physics, and that "quantum graphity" might
> be a good idea, but if correct, such idea have to be recovered from the
> (more ambitious) attempt to get a unification of both qualia and quanta
> (consciousness and matter). The authors have still not integrate the
> mind-body problem. We are still much in advance on this list :)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On 18 Jan 2012, at 14:53, ronaldheld wrote:
>
>  I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
>> I have just started to read it.,
>>Ronald
>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe@**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+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>


-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
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: The Computing Spacetime

2012-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal

Stephen, Ronald,

The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from
the argument that any digital physics is bound to be unsuccessful on
the mind-body problem by being still physicalist. The body problem is
a problem of computer science, that is arithmetic, once we bet that
observer are Turing emulable, as they should if the physics is digital.

If the universe is a computation, then comp is true. But comp implies
that the universe cannot be a computation (by UDA). So the universe is
a computation implies that the universe is not a computation. So the
universe is not a computation, whatever it can be. This defeat
Finkelstein, Schmidhuber, Fredkin, and all attempts to conceive the
physical universe as a computation, or output of a computation.

Bruno

On 18 Jan 2012, at 14:53, ronaldheld wrote:

I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
I have just started to read it.,
Ronald

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

The Computing Spacetime

2012-01-18 Thread Stephen P. King


Dear Friends,

I recommend the following paper for your comment:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3398v1


 The Computing Spacetime

Fotini Markopoulou 
<http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Markopoulou_F/0/1/0/all/0/1>

(Submitted on 17 Jan 2012)

   The idea that the Universe is a program in a giant quantum computer
   is both fascinating and suffers from various problems. Nonetheless,
   it can provide a unified picture of physics and this can be very
   useful for the problem of Quantum Gravity where such a unification
   is necessary. In previous work we proposed Quantum Graphity, a
   simple way to model a dynamical spacetime as a quantum computation.
   In this paper, we give an easily readable introduction to the idea
   of the universe as a quantum computation, the problem of quantum
   gravity, and the graphity models. 




Onward!

Stephen

--
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.

The Computing Spacetime

2012-01-18 Thread ronaldheld

I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
I have just started to read it.,
 Ronald

-- 
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: The Computing Spacetime

Re: The Computing Spacetime

Re: The Computing Spacetime

Re: The Computing Spacetime

Re: The Computing Spacetime

The Computing Spacetime

The Computing Spacetime

7 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information