On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
*>We need silicon only to tell us what to ignore. Too many infinite bit > strings exist in math, they exist in e, Pi, sqrt(2), etc. The infinite > messages and data is all there, stored forever. What we ask of our > computers is to tell us which of the infinite values is relevant to us. * > Separating the stuff we want from the stuff we don't is important, that's why we say Michelangelo's huge statue of David is 500 years old and not far older even though in the platonic sense David was inside a gigantic block of Carrara marble for 100 million years and all Michelangelo did was unpack it, he just removed the parts of the block that weren't David. Of course there was an equally huge statue of Harry Potter inside that same marble block, but unfortunatly Michelangelo didn’t unpack Harry. > > > My point is platonic computations are like computations that happen in > other universes, beyond the cosmological horizon, > If computations m platonic or otherwise, are beyond my cosmological horizon then by definition there is no way they can have an effect on me or I could have an effect on them, they have no way of even knowing what I'm doing and so can have nothing to do with my subjective experience, and I have no way of even knowing if they exist. So even if Platonic computations exist (and I still don't see how anything can DO anything in Plato’s heaven) they have no relevance to me and have nothing to do with science. > *You would still consider it a real computation that exists, even if in > principal you cannot get the result into your brain?* If you tell me about a computation beyond my cosmological horizon then obviously it has had an effect on my brain, but then it couldn't have been beyond my cosmological horizon. > >>> >> >>> *The equation does nothing, the relation it describes does everything. >>> (Just like the physics equations in your text book are ineffectual, what >>> matters is the object described by the equations).* >>> >> >> >> >> >> I agree. So what are we arguing about? >> >> > > > > *The objects we hope are partly described by our equations, and whether > they exist.* > But I agree with all of that. Equations exist and they can describe physical things that happen in our physical universe if you know the language of mathematics, > >* * > *A platonic computation could implement your consciousness* > I asked thing before I'll ask it again, what is brain damage such a big deal? > > > What if in universe B, they run a simulation of John Clark's brain as it > is in universe A, right after a near by gamma ray burst destroys all life > on Earth. Could you be resurrected by the programmers in universe B? > Sure, but the trouble is if they are beyond my cosmological horizon (and it they're not then they are in my universe not universe B) then there is no way they could even know I exist much less have detailed knowledge of how my brain is wired up. >** > *Energy is a means of doing work in this universe,* > And computation is work. > >** > *it doesn't explain what keeps the universe itself going. * > It does if the Big Bang was in a low entropy state. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
