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 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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
