On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>> >>> Of the 10^500 string theory physics, maybe 1 in a million or fewer are >>> rich enough to support life. >>> >> >> >> >> >> If so then there are 10^494 universes >> rich enough to support life >> , and there is a 100% probability that the universe I live in is one of >> them. >> >> > > > > Which implies a high probability that other universes, ruled by different > laws, exist. > Obviously, except of course the physical law that makes you conclude that there are 10^500 universes in the first place. So what's your point? >> >> If physical objects like a calculator or your brain *don't* have access >> to numbers then you know nothing about numbers you only know about >> simulated numbers. >> > > > > If the simulation is accurate, you gain accurate information about that > which is simulated. > A simulation is never 100% accurate, if they were absolutely identical there would be no point in doing it because we already have the real one. I think that when a physical object like your brain adds 2 and 2 it's not a simulation at all and the 4 it produces is as real as integers get and i s exactly precisely 4. But you think it's just simulation so all you know is that simulated 2 and simulated 2 is approximately 4, but its exact value depends on how good the simulation is. > > >> If physical objects like a calculator or your brain *do* have access to >> actual non-simulated numbers and if numbers are all that's required to make >> a calculation then physical object should be able to make arbitrarily large >> calculations instantly with no expenditure of energy. >> > > > > Right that's the problem. The computations and their results exist out > there already. But they don't interact with the atoms of our universe. > They don't interact with the atoms of our universe ?! Why the hell not, according to you those very atoms are made of nothing but numbers! > > >>> >> >>> For us to arrange atoms in a way that corresponds to these computations >>> or results, we need to build physical simulations of those computations. >> >> >> >> >> So why can't you? > > > > > What kind of mechanism are you proposing is possible to cause atoms to > arrange themselves into the final result of a long running calculation? > You tell me. You're the one who insists that numbers pull the strings on everything that happens in the physical world not me. > >>> >> >>> >>> you should by extension believe that P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = s_n >>> independently of you, me, >>> >> >> >> >> Those are some very nice ASCII characters you've typed there, but the >> truth is I don't care if it's independent of you or not because "P(P(P(P( >> ... (s_1) ...)))) = s_n" can't make a calculation nor can any sequence of >> ASCII characters, but a silicon microprocessor can. >> > > > > You are conflating a computation with a physical approximation/simulation > OK, your physical brain has run a approximation/simulation of 2 + 2 so now you know the answer is approximately 4, but it could be 3.9 or 4.1. > > of that computation. "P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = s_n" can't perform a calculation or a simulation or even an approximation because "P(P(P(P( ... (s_1) ...)))) = s_n" is just a sequence of ASCII characters. But a physical microprocessor can do all of those things. > > I give up. > OK. > > > You clearly aren't interested in learning. I'm always willing to learn, but only from those who have something true and interesting to teach. 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.
