On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:14 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > *>Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you >> but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile >> fields and sprawling cities,* >> > Maybe. If the universe is infinite (and not just astronomical) then yes > but nobody knows if it is, or if Many Worlds is true then yes but nobody > knows for sure if that is true either. > So then self-location is not necessarily easy. > > >> * >in a solar system with eight other planets?* >> > > The solar system I live in only has 7 other planets. Probably. > > >> *>The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. >> But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without >> finishing it* >> > > Then that person and I have diverged, we remember being the same person > but things have changed. > > >> *>If in your entire life you had only seen one red object, would you on >> that basis conclude that there can only be one red object?* >> > > Those are unusual circumstances so I don't know if I would conclude that > or not, if I did then I would be wrong. However I'm sure I would conclude > there was only one red, or at least only one red of that shade, and in that > I would be correct. > Yet you make this error when you say only matter and energy can perform computations, because those are the only computations you have seen. You have no evidence that computations don't or can't exist in other universes, realms, or parts of reality, or purely platonically. The only evidence you have presented is your own ignorance of them. (which says very little when the entity in question (John Clark) is relying only on senses which are not connected to those other realms and so should not be expected to have witnessed them.) > > >> *>If the computational theory of mind is true, then accurate prediction >> requires the consideration of all possible future computational extensions >> and their relative frequency in reality.* >> > > > Then any prediction would be impossible because nobody has an infinite > mind, so nobody can consider all possible computations. > > > > >> *You believe in the physical existence of other universes besides the one >> we can see, don't you?* >> > > I have a hunch they exist but I've been wrong before. > > > >> >>> >> >>> The Intel Corporation's annual report and the fact that they are unable >>> to find anything that can change except for matter/energy hence the >>> justification for the 13.1 billion dollars the company spent last year on >>> discovering new ways of getting the element Silicon to perform calculations >>> and the reason the president of Intel has not been fired for wasting money. >>> >> >> *>That's fairly weak evidence,* >> > > I just gave you 13.1 billion reasons and think you that's weak? > Extremely weak, actually. You are presuming many things, all of which are quite dubious. For example, that: 1. That Intel has discovered everything that is physically possible. 2. Intel has discovered everything in reality. 3. That Intel has publicly disclosed everything it knows. 4. That Intel could build devices that can access the results of computations made in other realities/realms/universes. 5. That Intel could profitably build devices that can access the results of computations in other realities/realms/universes using existing technology. > > > >> >>> The information is not in Universe B in any meaningful sense and will >>> have to be computed again unless the answer can somehow be communicated to >>> universe B. >>> >> >> *>So you agree the the computation can exist in universe B, but for >> those in universe A to access the result, they need to perform the >> computation again. Is this right?* >> > > If I want an answer I must either calculate it again or establish a > communication link between universe A and universe B. But you don't have > to go to anything as exotic as separate universes to establish that simple > fact; if you multiply 874 by 962 and get a answer and I want the answer too > I can either calculate it again or ask you to communicate the answer to me; > but BOTH processes involve matter that obeys the laws of physics. > 1. So what is the difference between a platonic computation and one that occurs physically in a physical universe that is inaccessible to us? 2. Could there be a physical universe in which every possible computation is performed, or could there be a separate physical universe containing only a computer, each universe executing a single program forever? Wwhy or why not? > The fundamental problem is I know how to communicate with you but the only > way to communicate with Plato's mathematical heaven is by a process that is > absolutely identical to a calculation. And that means that the very concept > of Plato's heaven is as unnecessary and pointless as the luminiferous > aether . And that means I can't prove that either one doesn't exist but I > can prove that both are silly. > > >> >>> Time is one of the 4 dimensions of that block universe, at a different >>> spacial coordinate the universe will look different and the same is true >>> for a different time coordinate. If at at event X I don't know the answer >>> to a calculation but at event Y I do then between X and Y something has >>> changed, I either made a calculation or received a communication from >>> somebody who has, and nobody has ever made a calculation or a communication >>> without using matter that obeys the laws of physics. >>> >> >> *>So in your view, could this physical structure of matter and energy >> be a platonic statically existing 4-dimensional structure?* >> > > The space-time block universe is the most complex thing in, well, in the > universe; how could it be simple, > Who said it was simple? > how could it be unchanging along all 4 dimensions?? If it were then the > density of matter would be exactly the same at every 3D spacial coordinate > and it would never change with respect to time, and the very concept of > motion would not only be impossible it would be inconceivable because it > wouldn't even be definable. Needless to say that is not what we observe. > > Change is an illusion. (to paraphrase Einstein and Parmenides) Jason -- 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.
