On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> One doesn't exist and zero doesn't exist. No difference. >> >> > > > > If they're not different then how can "no thing" a.k.a. "zero things" > remain consistent if there is no difference between "zero things" and "1 > thing"? > A change from nothing to nothing seems pretty constant to me. The null set doesn't contain zero it contains nothing, and I won't even grant you the null set because I want you to start with a nothing so nothing that the only thing it will ever produce is nothing. You are claiming there is a difference between nothing and nothing and I think that's unlikely. > >** > *Something is computing/has computed the evolution of our universe. What > is it?* > Matter that obeys the laws of physics. And no I don't know why the laws of physics exist rather than nothing, even God doesn't know that if "nothing" lacks the potential of ever becoming something. >> >> A Turing Machine can be built from Conway's Life game and gliders would >> be a key part of it, but a individual glider has no intelligence and the >> chances it is conscious and has a point of view are about the same as the >> brain neurotransmitter molecule Acetylcholine being conscious. >> > > *>The smallest possible gliders might not be conscious, but this doesn't > preclude more complex gliders that could perceive and be conscious of > things in their environment.* > Yes I agree, they could be as conscious as you or me but they would be composed of trillions of interacting gliders and they might not even know that gliders exist until after thousands of (subjective) years their technology got powerful enough to make a microscope that can see gliders and some scientists wins their equivalent of a Nobel prize for the esoteric discovery. > ** > *Consciousness self-selects itself. The non-conscious computations are > not perceived, so don't matter. The computations that implement conscious > observers find themselves as conscious observers.* > Why are only integers conscious when the p-adic numbers are just as logically consistent? And nobody has explained how anything can DO anything in Plato's mathematical heaven. A function or computer program may say do this and that but it can't do it by itself it must get you or a computer to do what it says before anything changes. Plato's heaven is unchanging, and without change neither intelligence nor consciousness is possible; it couldn't be more different with physics, it says change is not only allowed it is mandatory. > *You can implement any computation with a recursive function.* > Yes, YOU can do that, you can do all sorts of things to a function, but a function can't do a damn thing to itself or to anything else unless you use the information in the function to write a program and you run the program on a physical computer and you make sure the computer is connected to the power grid. A paper printout of even the most elegant computer program just sits there on the paper doing nothing, its just but a bunch of squiggles on dried wood pulp; if you want to breathe fire into it you've got to put it in a powered up computer. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
