On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> does Susskind say there is less than a >> >> 100% chance that the universe I live in would be a universe amenable to >> life >> ? >> > > > > He lays out a convincing case that the probability that any possible > string-theory universe would not be expected to be capable of supporting > life, > **Any possible string-theory universe? Any? Then string theory must be wrong because there is a 100% probability that the universe I live in IS a universe capable of supporting life. I will now go out on a limb and make a bold statement: any universe that has life in it is a universe capable of supporting life. > > > which suggests that many universes with different laws exist. > Yes but obviously not all of the physical laws could be different, not the physical laws that suggested there were 10^500 universes for one example. I also think the second law of thermodynamics would have to be true in all of them. > >> >> you said a calculator or anything physical is simulating arithmetic so >> all you can believe is that simulated 2 and simulated 2 is equal to >> simulated 4. >> >> > > > > 2 + 2 = 4, and we know that because our simulations of 2 + 2 turn come out > to equal 4. > But a simulation is not identical to the thing being simulated, if it was there would be no reason to go to all the bother of simulating it, we already have the real thing. Simulations take shortcuts and sometimes end up being wrong as the weather department could tell you. If you believe that our arithmetic is just simulated arithmetic then all you know is that with our current simulations simulated 2 and simulated 2 is the same as simulated 4, but as our simulations get better you must consider the possibility that it could approach 4.01. However if you believe as I do that the numbers we use in our arithmetic are not simulated but are the real deal and if you believe as I do not that numbers are more fundamental than physics then you have grave problems explaining why INTEL bothers with silicon microchips and doesn't just make calculations directly with pure numbers. >> >> A function "will" do absolutely nothing, in the future the function >> will be exactly the same as it is right now. A function can not perform a >> calculation and neither can a definition, but a microprocessor made of >> matter that obeys the laws of physics can. >> > > > > If you think: 2 + 2 = 4, independently of you, me or anything else, > I think it's a fact about the physical universe that humans have discovered that is independent of them, but if whenever 2 rocks and 2 rocks were brought together a new rock would pop into existence then humans would say 2 +2 =5, but that's not the way the physical world works. > > > then you should by extension believe that P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = > s_n independently of you, me, or anything else. > It doesn't matter what I believe and it doesn't matter what I can prove because neither a belief nor a proof can make a calculation, but a silicon microprocessor can. >> >> If >> Nick Bostrom is right >> then >> the John Clark program is >> STILL >> being run on 3 pounds of grey goo >> , it's just that the >> 3 pounds of grey goo >> is being run on a computer at a higher level. Computer X may be >> simulating computer Y which is simulating computer Z which is running the >> John Clark program, but computer Z is still running the John Clark program. >> > > > > You still can't know that, because the computer might just be implementing > your mind program directly, rather than simulating all the details of the > grey goo between your ears. > But every time one of those details about that grey goo between my ears changes my consciousness changes, and every time my consciousness changes one of those details about that grey goo between my ears changes > > If computationalism is true, then to be able to know that you are grey > goo, rather than a silicon computer, violates the Church-Turing thesis. > I don't know where you got that, all the Church-Turing thesis says is that you can calculate something if and only if a Turing Machine can make the same calculation. > Russel Standish and Bruno Marchal both recovered a quantum reality from information theory and self-reference logic alone, respectively. >> >> >> Anybody who had done half of what you claimed would be not just the >> greatest scientists who ever lived but the greatest human being who ever >> lived times 1000. And I just don't think Russell or Bruno are in that >> category. > > > > > It takes about 100 years on average, before the new scientific discoveries > bubble down to be common knowledge. > (See Copernicus, Darwin, Everett). Maybe in 100 years, people will look > upon you as we now look at the Nobel prize committee who thought Einstein's > theory of relativity was too radical of an idea to be worthy of the prize. > Talk about delusions of grandeur! So Russell and Bruno can derive Quantum Mechanics from nothing but pure numbers, well then they should be able to tell me from number theory alone what's so special about 1837 and 1839. Why is the proton 1837 times the mass of the electron and why is the neutron 1839 times the mass of the electron? Forget about the rest of physics, if anybody can answer that using just numbers that alone would be enough to make them the greatest physicist (or mathematician as you think there is no difference) who ever lived. John K Clark -- 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.
