On 29 May 2014, at 00:17, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and
therefore consciousness) can exist without physics. That physical
instantiation is dispensable.
Yes indeed. I would say that for comp to be meaningful, it's
necessary to show that information is a real (and fundamental)
thing, rather than something that only has relevance / meaning to
us - I suppose deriving the entropy of a black hole, the
Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle all hint that this
is the case. (Maybe QM unitarity and the black hole information
paradox too?)
I'm not sure how secure a footing any of these items put the
"reification of information" it on, though.
As Bruno has noted, we live on border between order and chaos -
neither maximum nor minimum information/entropy but something like
"complexity". Here's recent survey of ways to quantify it by Scott
Aaronso, Sean Carroll and Lauren Ouellette. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1818
As usual I don't have time to read that paper, at least not
immediately. However I see that defining complexity appear to
require coarse graining. If so, I would take this to mean that there
isn't anything fundamental being defined - or at least that we're in
a grey area where nothing is known to be fundamental. On the other
hand, entropy used to require coarse graining but as I mentioned
above has now been defined for black holes, so assuming BHs really
exist (and the things we think are BHs aren't some other type of
massive object of an undefined nature) that would at least suggest
that fundamental physics involves entropy, and hence information.
Is there any complexity measure that doesn;t involve CG and hence
isn't just (imho) "in the eye of the beholder" ?
Computer science provides a lot of definition for complexity, below
the computable, like SPACE or TIME needed, related to tractability
issues and above the computable, like the degree of unsolvability
shown to exists by using machine + oracles (for example).
Those notion are typically not in the eye of the beholder, as they are
the same for all universal numbers. Computer scientist says that they
are machine-independent notion. They remain invariant for the change
of the base of the phi_i.
With comp, what i showed is that we have indeed to extract the law of
the qubits ("quantum logic") from the laws of the bits (the laws of
Boole, + Boolos). IMO, Everett + decoherence already shows the road
qubits to bits. But comp provides a double (by G/G*) reverse of that
road, which separates quanta and qualia (normally, although quanta
must be a first person plural).
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
