On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 9:36 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>The block universe changes along the time dimension and special >>> relativity deals with time, but the number 3 never changes with time and >>> has nothing to do with it. >>> >> >> *>Then you agree that there can be an objectively static object,* >> > > Static with respect to what dimension? The block universe is a > mathematical 4D object constructed in 1 dimension of time and 3 dimensions > of space that follows Non-Euclidean geometry, and it changes in time and it > changes in space, if it didn't there would be no details in the universe > and everything would be a even unchanging fog. > Special Relativity implies all points in time are equally real, and moreover, cannot be sliced into any objective view of a "present", each inertial reference frame can have its own view of what the present is. If all points in time exist then the universe doesn't change. The universe is then an unchanging "platonic object", perhaps not unlike the integers, platonic execution traces, the Mandelbrot set, etc. > > > *and that if we proceed through it in some dimension some view of it >> changes.* >> > > It may be implicit but the word "change" only has meaning if it's relative > to some dimension, and if we're talking about consciousness there is no > dimension more important than time. And unlike us numbers can't see time so > if we are to have any hope of understanding consciousness we must look > elsewhere. > > I never said numbers see time. But programs can. > > *How is this different from a platonic computation, along which you can >> view the state of the machine at individual steps?* >> > > The difference is with a platonic computer you can NOT view the state of > the machine at individual steps or view anything else about it either, and > the scientific method can not provide a single scrap of evidence that the > machine even exists. > It can. You are using an overly constrained method of science which depends on your vision. We can't see beyond the Hubble volume, nor prove that anything exists beyond it, but the conclusions of testable theories are that there is stuff beyond the horizon, so we ought to believe in it. Likewise, the small amount of evidence we have points toward arithmetical realism as the basis of physics (it has passed several tests without being refuted). Thus it is a theory in all respects as any other testable scientific theory is. I don't know why you object so strongly to it when you have presented zero counter evidence. > > > >>What are computations but the descriptions of particle's motion? >>> Particles can do computations but computations can't do particles. >>> >> >> > *How are the motions of "really real" particles different from the >> motions of particles in a simulation of particles? * >> > > The simulated particle relies on a computer made of matter for its > existence and, unless we're living in a simulation, real particles don't. > And if we are in a simulation then the computer that is simulating us must > be made of real matter because even there numbers can't change, only > matter/energy can. > What about hypothetical analogous forms of "matter and energy" that exist in other string theory universes with different laws of physics? Could one build a computer using their equivalents of "matter and energy"? What are the bare necessities, as you envisage, for building a computer? > > >> *> You believe a simulation of a conscious mind still results in >> consciousness, don't you?* >> > > Of course. > > > *I think you are being inconsistent here.* >> > > It would be inconsistent if personal identity were a noun but it's not, > its an adjective. I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a > johnkclarkian way, if the pattern of electrical charges inside a computer > are organized in a johnkclarkian way then that is John K Clark. > > > *If change is an illusion,* >> > > When talking about the nature of consciousness that word should never be > used because it is a total cop out and explains nothing. > But we shouldn't depend our naive common experience when making conclusions about reality. Otherwise we are liable to conclude the sun moves around the Earth, or that there is an objectively moving present and that past and future points in time don't exist. Or that only one branch of the wave function is real, or that only matter from the universe I am in can do anything. > > >> > *that illusion can exist within the conscious minds implemented in >> platonic computations as well.* >> > > It's not just consciousness, NOTHING can exist inside the mind of a > platonic computer unless something changes, and it only has numbers to work > with or it wouldn't be platonic so nothing can change. > But didn't you accept the block universe view? How do you resolve these two seemingly incompatible ideas? > > >> >>> Think of consecutively computed states in the Game of Life, for >>>> example. >>>> >>> >>> >>Bad example. There is no memory in the Game of Life, >>> >> >> > *I picked the example on purpose. Game Of Life is Turing Complete.* >> > > I know, I've mentioned that fact on this list many many times; it means if > you organize matter according to the rules determined by the game of life > then that matter can compute anything that can be computed. > > > You can build Turing Machines in the Game of Life, so you can build >> systems with memories >> > > NO! You can't store any memories in the game, if I show you a particular > Life pattern you could figure out its next state but there is no way in > general you or anybody else could figure out what it's previous pattern was > because there just isn't any information about that stored inside the > pattern. When the game is run memories of a previous state in the game > are stored *outside* of the game in silicon memory chips that are part of > the computer running the Life program. > > > *Likewise with out universe, as the quantum erasure experiment shows, >> or even just the single photon interferometer experiment.* > > > A photon is a particle and it contains energy not numbers. > Everything about it can be described in terms of numbers. There is no proof photons, or any particle for that matter, has ant existence beyond the numbers/information necessary to describe it. > > >>And the Game of Life needs either a biological brain or a electronic >>> computer for the game to change, that is to say for it to DO anything, and >>> both brains and computers are made of matter and obey physics. >> >> >> *> False, see above. * > > > See what above? > The Game of Life computer (doesn't need photon, doesn't need matter, it only needs the game of life). > > *> You can have a non-biological, non-electronic computer built within the >> "physics" of the Game of Life.* > > > Then do so and become the richest and most powerful man the world has ever > known before this month is over. > Different universes don't causally interact. However we can simulate other them to access information about them. This is what we do when we run our material computers in this universe (simulating platonic Turing machines to access information about them, or simulating Game of Life universes to see how they unfold). > > > *This computer could simulate a mind with consciousness. No >> electrons or photons are needed. Just a lot of gliders and glider guns, and >> other such structures. All built from very simple rules.* > > > The first program I ever wrote was a Game of Life program, but before > those gliders and glider guns could DO anything they needed 2 things, my > brain to write the program and a computer to run it on, and both those > things are made of matter and both obey the laws of physics. > By "DO something" you mean "before the information about them could get into this universe and your brain" > > >> >> For me to compare my present state I need a record of it , and that >>> means my previous state must have somehow changed something that I can read >>> now. But my previous state had only numbers to work with so which number >>> did it change, is 3 no longer 3? All I want is for you to tell me of >>> something other than mass/energy that can change. >> >> >> *> All you need to support an experience of change is a memory that >> contains information about an older and a more recent state. * > > > I agree, but if it's not mass/energy what has changed so that is has > recorded that information in you mystical nonmaterial platonic Turing > Machine? > > *> The value of a variable in a computation may change from one >>> computational step to the next.* >>> >> > True, and that's why when I make a long calculation I need a scratch pad > to write down the results of one part of it so I remember it while I work > on some other part of the calculation, but a scratch pad is made of matter > and it took me energy to change it by writing on it, but you have neither > matter > or energy all you have to work with is numbers. So what is your > scratchpad made of and how do you change it? > > *> What keeps track of the fact that 2+2=4? Or any of the other infinite >> facts in mathematics? * > > > The only place information can be stored, in matter; in this case in the > arrangement of atoms in my head and in the arrangement of atoms in many > grade school textbooks. The atoms in the textbooks can not change their > atomic arrangement but the atoms in my brain can; although they won't > change that particular arrangement unless I suffer some sort of grievous > brain damage. > Where are all of the trillions of yottabytes of the first 10^36 digits of Pi stored? No book, library, or computer on Earth has the capacity to hold that much information. > > >> >> You're simply asserting the very thing you're trying to prove. >>> Nothing gets executed and nothing yields anything without matter/energy. >> >> >> *> "You're simply asserting the very thing you're trying to prove." -> >> "**Nothing >> gets executed and nothing yields anything without matter/energy."* >> > > The situation is not symmetrical. I can provide countless examples of > matter/energy doing computations but you can not provide a single example > of computations doing matter/energy. > Pointing out a hundred red fish does not disprove the existence of a blue fish. Regarding me providing an example of computations doing matter energy, this is suggested by the theory presented by Bruno and also by Markus Muller which has survived several tests. I can't point to an example to prove it, just like you can't point to another branch of the wave function to prove many worlds, but it is a conclusion of a refutable theory which has not yet been refuted (and has collected some evidence), so at the least you should be agnostic and open to the possibility of non-material computations. > > > *You are trying to use experimentalism/personal experience to do >> metaphysics (talk about things outside of physics). *It's the wrong tool >> for the job, and may explain why you have been stuck for so many years. > > > I am trying to use the scientific method, if metaphysics is outside of > that then that explains why it has not advanced one inch in the last 2500 > years. > Metaphysics can and has been done scientifically. E.g. eternal inflation, string theory landscapes, many worlds, are arguably metaphysics. > > > *Do you believe everything in reality is causally connected * > > > In a word no. It's true that if Many Worlds is correct then a observer > outside the multiverse looking back on it would see every event having a > cause but logically such a observer can not exist and the view from a > nonexistent point of view is self contradictory. > So according to you, a computer in one of those other branches: 1. "Can't DO a thing" 2. "Can DO a thing" > > >> All that could indeed happen if the program was executed on a >>> computer, but it it's not all you'll see is a inert sequence of squiggles >>> printed on a paper that never changes and is unable to DO anything. >> >> >> *> Define "do".* > > > No. Definitions are made of words so if I were to *DO* as you request you > would then demand another definition of at least one of those words which > would also be made of words and we'd go on like that forever. So this is > what I suggest you *DO* to fill this surprising gap in your vocabulary, > reread this sentence and the preceding one and puzzle out the meaning of > the word from the context, that is after all how you first learned language > as a small child, you didn't learn to talk from definitions in dictionaries > you learned by examples. > > *> Do you agree an execution trace of a program changes along the >> dimension of the program counter?* > > > Do you agree a program counter describes the electrical charge inside a > silicon microchip within the computer that is running the program? > Only for certain architectures and only for electronic silicon-based computers. > > >> >> If X is a pure number then you'd better hope nobody can change it >>> because if they did then mathematics would not only become useless it would >>> be ridiculous. And without change you can't have memory and without memory >>> you can't make a calculation and without calculation you can't have >>> intelligence or consciousness. Fortunately for us numbers can't change but >>> one thing can, matter/energy. >> >> >> > *They don't though.* > > > I don't know if you mean numbers can change or that matter/energy can't, > and I don't know which is more ridiculous. > > The latter. Matter and energy don't change, it is only from your conscious perspective that they do. 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.
