ronaldheld wrote: > As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is > well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of > mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or > something else? > Ronald > This is /the/ question. It always seems to get sidestepped in discussions that fail to distinguish between (a) "/reality as some kind of natural computation/" and (b) "/reality represented by formal statements(laws of nature) of regularity, //apparent in an observer, //that may be artificially computed/ /by a Turing style machine/". The conflation of (a) and (b) is a constant in the discussions here.
(a) does not need an observer. It /constructs/ an observer. (b) involves an observer and are regularities constructed by the observer made by (a) The (roughly 5) conflations (from my paper that refutes COMP) are: Conflation #1: Deploying an artificial scientist ? Bestowing scientific knowledge Conflation #2: COMP(utation) ? experience Conflation #3: A Scientist ? Formal system Conflation #4 Rules of a rule generator ? the generated rules (except once) Conflation #5 AC Artificial Turing style abstract symbol manipulation ? NC The computation that is the natural world Note that all 5 of these permeate the discussions here. I see it all the time. The main one is #5. When you realise how many combinations of these can misdirect a discussion, you realise how screwed up things are. The following statements summarise the effects: (A) The fact that the natural world, to an observer, happens to have appearances predicted by a set of formal statements (Laws of Nature/Physics) does not entail that those statements are in any way involved in running/driving the universe. Eg. The assumption that the concept of a 'multiverse' is valid or relevant is another symptom of the conflation....the reason? QM is a mathematical construct of type (b), /not/ an example of (a). The whole concept of a multiverse is a malady caused by this conflation. (B) The operation of a Turing Machine ( = hardware-invariant//artificial abstract/ symbol manipulation) is /not /what is going on in the natural world and, specifically, is /not/ what is happening in the brain (of a scientist). Assuming 'cognition is computation' is unjustified on any level. I find the situation increasingly aggravating. It's like talking to cult members who's beliefs are predicated on a delusion, and who a re so deep inside it and so unable to see out of it that they are lost. Common sense has left the building. The appropriate scientific way out of this mess is to (i) let (a) descriptions and (b) descriptions be, for the purposes, /separate scientific depictions of the natural world/ If they are not then at some point in the analysis they will become indistinguishable...in which case you have a /scientific/logical approach./ (ii) Drop /all/ assumptions that any discussion involving Turing machines as relevant to understanding the natural world. This means accepting,/ for the purposes of sorting this mess out/, (a) as being a form of computation fundamentally different to a Turing machine, where the symbols and the processor are literally the same thing. If you predicate your work on (i) then if COMP is true then at some point, if (a) and (b) become indistinguishable, /then/ COMP will be a-priori /predicted/ to be true. I leave you to unpack your personalised version of the conflations. Traditional physics/math training will automatically infect the trainee with the affliction that conflates (a) and (b). The system of organised thought in which an observer is a-priori predicted with suggested sources of empirical evidence, is the system that we seek. (a) and (b) above represent that very system. We are currently locked into (b) and have all manner of weird assumptions operating in place of (a) which mean, in effect, that _the /last/ thing physicists want to explain is physicists_. Endlessly blathering on about multiverses and assuming COMP does /nothing/ to that end. I've had 5 years of listening to this COMP/Turing machine/Multiverse stuff. It's old/impotent/toothless/mute (predicts nothing) and sustained only by delusion . It operates as a cult(ure). I am the deprogrammer. :-) colin PS. Brent .... I seem to have picked up a SHOUTING habit from a relatively brain dead AGI forum, where the folk are particularly deluded about what they are doing .... They are so lost in (ii) above and have so little clue about science, they need therapy! I'll try and calm myself down a bit. Maybe use /italics/ instead :-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
