On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jason thinks I must be suffering from buyer's remorse because I "spent > $80,000 when he is already saved by arithmetic" he concludes this because > on December 26 2012 at 12:34 PM I said " *A better question is do the > natural numbers need a reason to exist? I don't know the answer to that but > my hunch is no*". However in another post on December 26 2012 at 1:26 PM, > less than 2 hours later I said "*it is a fact that thinking of > information as something physical has over the last century proven itself > to be remarkably fertile and has led to the discovery of new knowledge, > while thinking of information as ethereal was found to be sterile and has > led to nowhere and nothing*". > > The existence of the natural numbers may or may not be a brute fact, but > it is certainly NOT a brute fact that we teach our children the particular > metric to measure the distance a natural number is from zero that yields > results such as 2+2=4 and not one of the infinite number of other self > consistent ones that the P-adic metric can provide. It is not a brute fact > because there is a reason for it, we teach that one and only that one to > children because it is the only one that is consistent with the physical > world. And because that one is far more intuitive than any P-adic one. And > it is more intuitive precisely because it is consistent with the physical > world we see around us and P-adic is not. > > >> > *However he uses the static nature of arithmetical truth to presume >> that it cannot represent "real computations". * >> > > There is a easy way to tell a "real computation" from the other sort. > Your computer can make one sort of computation without a battery or a AC > power outlet, but for the other sort your computer needs electricity. And you > can *do* something with one sort of calculation, but you can't *do* > anything with the other sort of "calculation". > > *> But he has not indicated why fundamental change (which I take to mean >> successive creation and destruction of states) should be necessary to >> computation,* >> > > Do I really need to indicate why you can't create or destroy something > without making a change? I don't think so. But I think you need to indicate > how, out of the set of all computations, you can pick the correct ones from > the incorrect ones without the help of matter that obeys the laws of > physics. > How do you suppose the laws of physics pick out the correct physical outcomes from among all possibilities? You presume there is a physical world governed by physical laws. But you deny an arithmetical world governed by arithmetical laws. Yet, assuming an arithmetical world governed by arithmetical laws, you can derive the appearance of a physical universe governed by physical laws. > > I think meaning needs contrast. Michelangelo's David was carved from a > single huge block of marble that was a 100 million years old, but it would > be silly to say David was 100 million years old and Michelangelo did > nothing but unpack it from the marble that was not part of David. And to > make a real calculation rather than a pretend toy one you have to > differentiate the correct from the incorrect, you not only have to > mention the correct answer you have to make it clear that all the other > answers, and there are a infinite number of them, are wrong. And for that > you need a physical machine. > > * > I think John has also argued against philosophical zombies.* > > > I have indeed. > >> > >> > *John's theory that fundamental change is required leads to an >> infinity of philosophical zombies existing within the arithmetical >> computations,* >> > > My theory is NOTHING exists within arithmetical computations because > arithmetical computations don't exist (existence being defined as stuff > that can *do* things), but physical computations certainly exist and can > *do" all sorts of things. > > >> *> 1. Can the time evolution of John Clark's brain be described by the >> solutions to a particular Diophantine equation? (e.g. an equation with >> variables t and s, where t = number of Plank times since start of >> emulation, and s = the wave function describing all the particles in your >> skull)* >> > > It can unless physics needs Real Numbers and it probably doesn't. Yes > Schrodinger's equation uses Real Numbers because it assumes space and time > are continuous, but that is probably only approximately true. And there > are a infinite number of equations and mathematically there is absolutely > nothing special about Schrodinger's equation, the only thing special about > that particular equation is it conforms with our observations of how the > physical world behaves. > > And I'm very surprised that as soon as you mentioned the Planck Time in > the above you didn't realize you had left the world of pure dimensionless > numbersand was talking numbers with physical units associated with them, > like measures of time and space and mass and energy and electrical charge. > If you think physical laws are computable, then time, space, mass, etc. can all be reduced to computation (and computation is the manipulation of pure numbers). > > *> 2. Are those brain states found in the collection of solutions to that >> equation reflective of a philosophical zombie?* >> > > No. > > > *could we build a John Clark robot that behaved exactly as John Clark >> would by searching for solutions to this equation, which would not be >> conscious* >> > > No. And it would not behave exactly like John Clark, it would not behave > at all because without physics there would be no way to search through > solutions to that equation or to any other. > Physical laws somehow pick out the correct solutions (without needing some higher order computer plugged into a power outlet), so why can't the same mechanism that powers physical law power arithmetical law? 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUirs7YVenuruZr9OJr6EOHx_cwPm5HA1UnVLnXHAmoRFg%40mail.gmail.com.
