subject:"Re\: Numbers in Space"



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>>
>> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, 
>> then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using 
>> only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use 
>> millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, 
>> and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? 
>>
>> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be 
>> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute 
>> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that 
>> shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in 
>> empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the 
>> computations.
>>
>
> Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access the 
> results.
>

Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When 
we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of 
space. We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness.
 

>  
>
>>
>> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
>> functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced 
>> to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of 
>> silicon?
>
>
> We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the 
> future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get 
> the result of any computation.  The problem is we are slow at doing this, 
>

Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in 
Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now?
 

> so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with 
> greater speed and accuracy than we ever could.
>

Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed?
 

>
> It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already 
> there.  The problem is learning their results.
>

The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do 
anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not 
computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't 
thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. 
If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to 
exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any 
function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything?

Craig


> Jason
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2cTxWQ1j_V0J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

2012-09-20 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of  
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal  
machines using only empty space?


You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space  
non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing  
universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is  
already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need  
three bodies at least).





Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or  
Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and  
multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?


Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to  
handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.


Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum.  
Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic.





Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be  
constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute  
position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but  
that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to  
directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us  
access to the results of the computations.


?




What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory  
be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally  
prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the  
computations of silicon?


Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with  
universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp,  
the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number  
"dreams" statistics.


The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason  
clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem  
mathematically.


And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving  
the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge  
people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood,  
or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. 
> > 
> > If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of   
> > physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal   
> > machines using only empty space? 
>
> You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space   
> non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing   
> universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is   
> already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need   
> three bodies at least). 
>
>
What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated 
bundles of lengths. No quantum. 

>
>
>
> > Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or   
> > Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and   
> > multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? 
>
> Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to   
> handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.  
>

> Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum.   
> Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. 
>

I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think 
about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the 
brain. I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of 
memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same 
space. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the 
rotating planet, revolving sun, etc.

So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no 
resources whatsoever besides space, provided that it could be justified 
arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp 
know if it's running on matter or space?)

>
>
> > 
> > Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be   
> > constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute   
> > position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but   
> > that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to   
> > directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us   
> > access to the results of the computations. 
>
> ? 
>

I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from 
under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the 
Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space 
while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me.

If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my body 
would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them. 
It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of thinking numbers 
into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, regardless of the 
distance between my body and the numbers.

>
> > 
> > What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory   
> > be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally   
> > prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the   
> > computations of silicon? 
>
> Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with   
> universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp,   
> the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number   
> "dreams" statistics. 
>

So you are saying yes to the space doctor?

>
> The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason   
> clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem   
> mathematically. 
>

I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the only way 
of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that if we really 
want to know the truth about mind body, we can only find that in the 
un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of experienced sense.

>
> And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving   
> the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge   
> people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood,   
> or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. 
>

I can behave respectfully to a puppet too, but I feel hypocritical because 
I wouldn't change places with them for any reason. 

>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/BUBSbCUjtbgJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everyt

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of 
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal 
machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why 
can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our 
enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from 
our mind to space?


Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be 
constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute 
position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but 
that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly 
program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to 
the results of the computations.


What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally 
prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the 
computations of silicon?



Craig


Hey Craig,

What do you think physical computers actually are? "universal 
machines using only empty space". But Nature hates a vacuum...


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why
can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for
our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program
from our mind to space?

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would
be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an
absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky
Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method
we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should
also give us access to the results of the computations.


Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access 
the results.



What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory
be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be
equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to
host the computations of silicon?


We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out 
the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and 
then get the result of any computation.  The problem is we are slow at 
doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic 
machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could.


It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are 
already there.  The problem is learning their results.


Jason

It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results". This 
is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first 
read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent
of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program
universal machines using only empty space? Length can be
quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck
lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and
multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we
would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored
to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar
system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since
whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with
our minds should also give us access to the results of the
computations.


Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to
access the results.


Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. 
When we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is 
running out of space. We access experience through what we are, not 
through nothingness.



What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in
theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't
it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good
enough to host the computations of silicon?


We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure
out the future evolution of computers that already exist in
Platonia and then get the result of any computation.  The problem
is we are slow at doing this,


Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in 
Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now?

Hi Craig,

We are! We just don't "feel" it...


so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines
do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could.


Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed?


What is the speed of light? Same question!




It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are
already there.  The problem is learning their results.


The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't 
do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not 
computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't 
thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal 
flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than 
Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality 
of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' 
anything?


Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will 
corrupt Olympia.



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of 
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal 
machines using only empty space?


You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space 
non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing 
universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is 
already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need 
three bodies at least).




Dear Bruno,

I agree 100% with you. That the quantum vacuum is TU, is obvious to 
me. I think that Svozil has something written on this.. maybe or 't Hoft.






Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or 
Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and 
multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?


Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to 
handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.


Only because we are trying to do things the classical way...



Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. 
Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic.


I am not sure if that is possible because it seems to me that that 
requires the specification of an uncountable infinity.






Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be 
constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute 
position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but 
that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly 
program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to 
the results of the computations.


?




What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally 
prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the 
computations of silicon?


Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with 
universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, 
the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number 
"dreams" statistics.


But the numbers build an "arithmetic body" and then populate a 
space with multiple copies of it... so that they can "implement" the UD. 
Their dreaming is this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamlands




The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason 
clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem 
mathematically.


I disagree. We can only formalize the mind, never the body, if we 
wish to never be inconsistent.




And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving 
the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge 
people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, 
or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course.


Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are 
algorithms hiding in a puppet.



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. 
> > 
> > If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of 
> > physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal 
> > machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why 
> > can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our 
> > enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from 
> > our mind to space? 
> > 
> > Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be 
> > constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute 
> > position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but 
> > that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly 
> > program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to 
> > the results of the computations. 
> > 
> > What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
> > functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally 
> > prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the 
> > computations of silicon? 
> > 
> > 
> > Craig 
>
> Hey Craig, 
>
>  What do you think physical computers actually are? "universal 
> machines using only empty space". But Nature hates a vacuum... 
>

Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally 
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.

Craig


> -- 
> Onward! 
>
> Stephen 
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/22EYmnKtf7UJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:10:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>>
>> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, 
>> then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using 
>> only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use 
>> millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, 
>> and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? 
>>
>> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be 
>> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute 
>> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that 
>> shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in 
>> empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the 
>> computations.
>>
>
>  Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access the 
> results.
>  
>
>>
>> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
>> functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced 
>> to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of 
>> silicon?
>
>
>  We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out 
> the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then 
> get the result of any computation.  The problem is we are slow at doing 
> this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do 
> with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could.
>
>  It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are 
> already there.  The problem is learning their results.
>
>  Jason
>
>  It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results". This 
> is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first 
> read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.
>

Exactly, and I was trying to show why. Without that resource cost, there is 
no reason for anything to have a cost and no reason to leave Platonia. 
Castles in the clouds ahoy!

Craig

 

> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3hD7s6xamHoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/20/2012 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>
> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
> physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
> machines using only empty space?

You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes
space
non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing
universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is
already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need
three bodies at least).

What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding 
enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum.

Hey!

Do you mean like a measure with nothing to rule on? Or a nothing 
without a measure?

> Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or
> Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and
> multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?

Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to
handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.

Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum.
Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic.

I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we 
think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does 
through the brain. I should be able to pick an area of my house and 
leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just 
be occupying the same space. That's if we define space as relative to 
my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc.

So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with 
no resources whatsoever besides space, provided that it could be 
justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. 
how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?)

Space is the only resource needed.

>
> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we
would be
> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an
absolute
> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc,
but
> that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to
> directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us
> access to the results of the computations.

?

I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off 
from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was 
with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the 
same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me.

If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my 
body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had 
placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of 
thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, 
regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers.

>
> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory
> be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally
> prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the
> computations of silicon?

Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with
universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume
comp,
the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number
"dreams" statistics.

So you are saying yes to the space doctor?

YES! I do! Over and over and over and over!

The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason
clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem
mathematically.

I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the only 
way of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that if we 
really want to know the truth about mind body, we can only find that 
in the un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of experienced sense.

And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before
giving
the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge
people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood,
or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course.

I can behave respectfully to a puppet too, but I feel hypocritical 
because I wouldn't change places with them for any reason.

How would you know that it happened?

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@google

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally 
normative, controllable, and observable behaviors.


Craig

To understand a thing is to control a thing.

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

2012-09-20 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>>
>> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
>> then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using
>> only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use
>> millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition,
>> and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?
>>
>> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be
>> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute
>> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that
>> shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in
>> empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the
>> computations.
>>
>
>  Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access the
> results.
>
>
>>
>> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be
>> functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced
>> to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of
>> silicon?
>
>
>  We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out
> the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then
> get the result of any computation.  The problem is we are slow at doing
> this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do
> with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could.
>
>  It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are
> already there.  The problem is learning their results.
>
>  Jason
>
>  It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results". This
> is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first
> read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.
>
>
For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation
may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation
in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result.
 You are the result.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:

It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are
already there. The problem is learning their results.

The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations
don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we
are not computations. We use computations. We can program things,
but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with.
This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for
anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go
through the formality of executing any functionis already
executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything?

Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will
corrupt Olympia.

Not at all, the answer is easy here. In the big picture, that is
arithmetic, nothing is done. The computations are already "done" in
it. "doing things" is a relative internal notion coming from the first
person perspectives.

Also, Platonia does not really exist, nor God, as existence is what
belongs to Platonia. Comp follows Plotinus on this, both God and
Matter does not belong to the category exist (ontologically). They are
epistemological beings.

Bruno

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:

On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>
> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
> physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
> machines using only empty space?

You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space
non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing
universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is
already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need
three bodies at least).

What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding  
enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum.

It would not be Turing universal.

> Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or
> Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and
> multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?

Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to
handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.

Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum.
Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic.

I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we  
think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does  
through the brain.

Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and  
multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on  
lambda terms, etc.

I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of  
memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying  
the same space.

Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to  
your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a  
persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the self- 
reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*.

That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the  
rotating planet, revolving sun, etc.

So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation  
with no resources whatsoever besides space,

No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for  
comp.

provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't  
understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on  
matter or space?)

By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the "material  
hypostases". Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the  
reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below  
our substitution level.

Bruno

>
> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be
> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute
> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but
> that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to
> directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us
> access to the results of the computations.

?

I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly  
off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I  
was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would  
occupy the same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away  
from me.

If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then  
my body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I  
had placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same  
method of thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve  
them too, regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers.

>
> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory
> be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally
> prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the
> computations of silicon?

Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with
universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp,
the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number
"dreams" statistics.

So you are saying yes to the space doctor?

The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason
clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem
mathematically.

I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the  
only way of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that  
if we really want to know the truth about mind body, we can only  
find that in the un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of  
experienced sense.

And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving
the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge
people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood,
or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respe

Re: Numbers in Space

On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:39, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space?

You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes
space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly
Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum
vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical
physics you need three bodies at least).

Dear Bruno,

I agree 100% with you. That the quantum vacuum is TU, is obvious
to me. I think that Svozil has something written on this.. maybe or
't Hoft.

Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or
Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and
multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?

Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time
to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.

Only because we are trying to do things the classical way...

?
Explain this to those who build the LHC.

Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum
vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in
arithmetic.

I am not sure if that is possible because it seems to me that
that requires the specification of an uncountable infinity.

I don't see the problem. You might confuse "Turing emulable" and
"Turing recoverable". In the last case we take into account the first
person indeterminacy, and comp already explains that it is uncountable.

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would
be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an
absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky
Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method
we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should
also give us access to the results of the computations.

What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory
be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be
equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to
host the computations of silicon?

Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with
universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume
comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through
number "dreams" statistics.

But the numbers build an "arithmetic body"

The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body.

and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they
can "implement" the UD.

No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists like prime numbers
exists. Primitively.

Their dreaming is this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamlands

The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily
reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem
mathematically.

I disagree. We can only formalize the mind, never the body, if we
wish to never be inconsistent.

We can't formalize neither the (1p) mind nor the body.

And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if
made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave
respectfully of course.

Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are
algorithms hiding in a puppet.

In that case comp is false.

Bruno

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:


On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent
of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program
universal machines using only empty space? Length can be
quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck
lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and
multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we
would be constantly flying away from a space that was
anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the
solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter
anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in
empty space with our minds should also give us access to the
results of the computations.


Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to
access the results.


What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in
theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't
it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good
enough to host the computations of silicon?


We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to
figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist
in Platonia and then get the result of any computation.  The
problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that
can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed
and accuracy than we ever could.

It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations
are already there.  The problem is learning their results.

Jason


It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results".
This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time
since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.


For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic 
computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very 
platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything 
extra to get the result.  You are the result.


Jason

Jason,

That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark 
upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind 
of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things don't 
work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite connectivity. 
We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be explained!


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:


It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations
are already there.  The problem is learning their results.


The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't 
do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not 
computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we 
can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a 
fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other 
than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the 
formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. 
Why 'do' anything?


Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will 
corrupt Olympia.


Not at all, the answer is easy here. In the big picture, that is 
arithmetic, nothing is done. The computations are already "done" in 
it. "doing things" is a relative internal notion coming from the first 
person perspectives.


Also, Platonia does not really exist, nor God, as existence is what 
belongs to Platonia. Comp follows Plotinus on this, both God and 
Matter does not belong to the category exist (ontologically). They are 
epistemological beings.


Bruno


Dear Bruno,

OK, but you are ignoring my question: How does the existence become 
decomposed such that there are "epistemological beings"? So far your 
explanation is focused on the representation in terms of arithmetics and 
I accept your reasonings: In the big picture, that is arithmetic, 
nothing is done." There is no "action", no change, all that exists "just 
is". But then what do we make of time? We can dismiss it as an illusion? 
But that would be just an evasion of the obvious question: Why does the 
illusion occur?
I am interested in explanation that at least try to answer this 
question: How does the illusion persist? What might "cause" it? Why do 
"special purpose" computations occur such that we can identify physical 
systems with them? My proposal is to weaken the concept of Computational 
Universality a tiny bit and thus allow room for the possibility of an 
answer to the questions that I have.
Consider this: What happens is there does *not* exist any physical 
system that can implement a particular computation X? Is it possible for 
us, humans, or any other sentient physical being to "know" anything 
about X, such that we might have some model of X that is faithfully 
representative?



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

On 9/21/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>
> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
> physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
> machines using only empty space?

You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes
space
non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing
universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum
vacuum) is
already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need
three bodies at least).

What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding 
enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum.

It would not be Turing universal.

Dear Bruno,

How so? What is the proof? Craig is allowing for N, + and *. So why 
not?

> Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or
> Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and
> multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?

Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of
energy/money/time to
handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.

Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum
vacuum.
Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic.

I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we 
think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does 
through the brain.

Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and 
multiplication of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on 
lambda terms, etc.

What do Integers represent? Are they just primitive "objects" with 
"inherent" properties?

I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of 
memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the 
same space.

Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to 
your memory only if the measure on computations makes such a 
persistence possible. This needs to be justified with the 
self-reference logics, and that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*.

You lost us ... "Eyes glaze over" No explanation is being offered 
as to how the measure comes to be. I am asking you about the measure. 
Why do you avoid my questions? I will not stop until you answer me 
coherently!

That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the 
rotating planet, revolving sun, etc.

So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation 
with no resources whatsoever besides space,

No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp.

So all "spaces" are physical? What about a Hilbert space? Is it not 
a mathematical object?

provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't 
understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on 
matter or space?)

By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the "material 
hypostases". Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the 
reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below 
our substitution level.

What determines the "substitution level"?

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  But the numbers build an "arithmetic body"


The numbers arithmetically dream of a non arithmetic body.


and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they 
can "implement" the UD.


No, they are implemented by the UD, which exists like prime numbers 
exists. Primitively.


So the dreams "exists like prime numbers exists. Primitively. " and 
the dreams are of "a non arithmetic body", thus "a non arithmetic body" 
exists primitively. How is this different from anything that I have 
tried to tell you of my ideas? We agree!! This is "dual aspect" 
monism! I used to call it process dualism, but realized that that 
working caused too much confusion.



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before 
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They 
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if 
made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully 
of course.


   Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are 
algorithms hiding in a puppet.


In that case comp is false.



No, it is not false. Only the strong version of step 8 is false.



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

2012-09-21 Thread Jason Resch

On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King"
wrote:

On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote:

On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of
physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal
machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why
can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for
our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program
from our mind to space?

Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to
access the results.

We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure
out the future evolution of computers that already exist in
Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem
is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell
us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy
than we ever could.

It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are
already there. The problem is learning their results.

Jason

It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results".
This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time
since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.

For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic
computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very
platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do
anything extra to get the result. You are the result.

Jason

Jason,

That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark
upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the
kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things
don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite
connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion
to be explained!

Does 38 have any factors?

Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps?

Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible
answer. Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it,
implement it or think it. They would be either true or false even if
nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it.

If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could
even say the question "Does program xyz contain conscious entities?"
is a mathematical question. If it is true, then there exist conscious
entities.

Your requirement that there be some "real" implementation for
computation leads to an infinite regress. What "real" computer is our
universe running on?

Jason

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

Re: Numbers in Space

2012-09-21 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:16:19 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally 
> normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. 
>
> Craig 
>
>  To understand a thing is to control a thing. 
>
>
Yes! Sort of. I have this whole concept of how motive participation evolves 
through sense in a linear, strategic way. Think of the panopticon 
perspective, where the control center is the hub of a wheel of cells which 
can be observed by the controllers. This metaphorically elevated position 
mirrors the physically elevated position, like a hilltop in battle, where 
the more terrain you can view, the more you can theoretically control the 
outcome of the battle strategically...

However:

You can still understand that you are going to get your ass kicked. 
Understanding gives you potential to control, and motive to control, but 
the execution of control requires...resources. Which means using your 
motives in a way which causes other beings to cause other beings to 
sympathize with your motives, leverage their own motives against rocks and 
sticks and high explosives, etc.. to be come more *persuasive*. 

Craig

-- 
> Onward! 
>
> Stephen 
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/YNIkpr1ouP8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

2012-09-21 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:18:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
>> > Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. 
>> > 
>> > If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of   
>> > physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal   
>> > machines using only empty space? 
>>
>> You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space   
>> non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing   
>> universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is   
>> already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need   
>> three bodies at least). 
>>
>>
> What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated 
> bundles of lengths. No quantum. 
>
>
> It would not be Turing universal.
>

If it isn't then that seems to me an argument for primitive physics. 
 

>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or   
>> > Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and   
>> > multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? 
>>
>> Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to   
>> handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length.  
>>
>
>> Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum.   
>> Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. 
>>
>
> I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think 
> about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the 
> brain.
>
>
> Or just arithmetic. You don't need space. Only addition and multiplication 
> of integers. Or justapplication and abstraction on lambda terms, etc.
>

I was going to do another post upping the ante from Numbers in Space to 
Numbers in Xpace (imaginary space). To me this is the fading qualia 
argument that could be a Waterloo for comp. The transition from Turing 
machines executed in matter to execution in space and then xpace would have 
to be consistent to support the claim that arithmetic is independent from 
physics. If that isn't the case, why not? What is different other than 
physical properties between matter, space, and xpace?
 

>
>
>
> I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories 
> there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. 
>
>
> Not at all. You are distributed in the whole UD*. You can go back to your 
> memory only if the measure on computations makes such a persistence 
> possible. This needs to be justified with the self-reference logics, and 
> that is what is done with S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*.
>

I don't know what that means exactly but if I am getting the gist, it still 
doesn't tell me why it is easier for me to remember something in my mind 
than to offload my memories onto objects, places, times of the year, 
whatever. Why not make a Turing machine out of time that uses moments 
instead of tape and tape instead of numbers? It seems to me that the 
universality of UMs is wildly overstated. 


>
>
> That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating 
> planet, revolving sun, etc.
>
> So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no 
> resources whatsoever besides space, 
>
>
> No need for spaces. To invoke it is already too much physicalist for comp.
>

So we can pretty much call comp magic then. It needs nothing whatsoever and 
can ultimately control anything from anywhere.
 

>
>
>
> provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't 
> understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter 
> or space?)
>
>
> By UDA. Anything physical must be justified with the "material 
> hypostases". Up to now, this works, even by giving the shadows of the 
> reason why destructive interference of the computations occurs below our 
> substitution level.
>

Why doesn't anything arithmetic need to be justified with "computational 
hypostases"?

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> > Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be   
>> > constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute   
>> > position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but   
>> > that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to   
>> > directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us   
>> > access to the results of the computations. 
>>
>> ? 
>>
>
> I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off 
> from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with 
> the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space 
> while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me.
>
> If instead of

Re: Numbers in Space



On 21 Sep 2012, at 16:24, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 9/21/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Sep 2012, at 03:28, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:


It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations  
are already there.  The problem is learning their results.


The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations  
don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we  
are not computations. We use computations. We can program things,  
but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with.  
This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for  
anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to  
go through the formality of executing any function is already  
executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything?


Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will  
corrupt Olympia.


Not at all, the answer is easy here. In the big picture, that is  
arithmetic, nothing is done. The computations are already "done" in  
it. "doing things" is a relative internal notion coming from the  
first person perspectives.


Also, Platonia does not really exist, nor God, as existence is what  
belongs to Platonia. Comp follows Plotinus on this, both God and  
Matter does not belong to the category exist (ontologically). They  
are epistemological beings.


Bruno


Dear Bruno,

OK, but you are ignoring my question: How does the existence  
become decomposed such that there are "epistemological beings"?


We agree that arithmetical truth is independent of us, or more  
formalistically we assume 0 s(0) ... and the law of addition and  
multiplication.


From that, and only that, we proves the existence of the  
computations, and get notably all the "dreams", as with comp we know  
that dreams, subjective experiences, needs to be associated to those  
computations. The epistemological beings appears in the content of  
those dreams, and recover, or not, sharable persistent epistemological  
realities.








So far your explanation is focused on the representation in terms of  
arithmetics and I accept your reasonings: In the big picture, that  
is arithmetic, nothing is done." There is no "action", no change,  
all that exists "just is". But then what do we make of time?


Time is easy, with comp, as we give an importance to processing, or  
successive manipulation. There is a variety of time since the start:

the order 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...
The UD time steps,
The particular steps of each computations in the UD,
etc.
None give the physical time, as it needs to be extracted from the  
physics emerging on the dreams.






We can dismiss it as an illusion?


We better not. Immaterial does not mean illusion, unless you are  
fictionalist, in which case comp is meaningless.



But that would be just an evasion of the obvious question: Why does  
the illusion occur?


Comp explains this entirely. Numbers can already explains where the  
illusion comes from, and why the illusion has many incommunicable  
features. This *is* solved.





I am interested in explanation that at least try to answer this  
question: How does the illusion persist?


That is the difficult things. That is what I translated in arithmetic.  
That is the measure problem. Either comp gives a quantum machinery  
below our substitution level, or it fails. The material hypostases  
already show that the measure one obeys to quantum like logics, and we  
got an arithmetical quantization in which we can test if there are  
quantum gate at the "universal dream bottom".




What might "cause" it? Why do "special purpose" computations occur  
such that we can identify physical systems with them? My proposal is  
to weaken the concept of Computational Universality a tiny bit and  
thus allow room for the possibility of an answer to the questions  
that I have.


CT makes the concept of Turing universality is one of the most solid  
epistemological concept ever ... (cf CT)

Good luck.



Consider this: What happens is there does not exist any physical  
system that can implement a particular computation X?


All computations can be implemented in any Turing universal system.  
*Many* subparts of the known physics are Turing universal, so what you  
say is impossible.




Is it possible for us, humans, or any other sentient physical being  
to "know" anything about X, such that we might have some model of X  
that is faithfully representative?


We already know many things which are not computable. Recursion theory  
is mainly the study and classification of those non computable things.  
In math, the computable is both pro-eminent in the construction we do,  
and the non computable is majority in the ontology. For example the  
non computable functions from N to N are not enumerable, and the  
computable one are enumerable (even if not mechanically or computably  
enum

Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" > wrote:



On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:


On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is
independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for
us to program universal machines using only empty space?
Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use
millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our
enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly
program from our mind to space?

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we
would be constantly flying away from a space that was
anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the
solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter
anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in
empty space with our minds should also give us access to
the results of the computations.


Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to
access the results.


What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in
theory be functionally identical to a living brain,
wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space
isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon?


We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to
figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist
in Platonia and then get the result of any computation.  The
problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that
can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed
and accuracy than we ever could.

It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations
are already there.  The problem is learning their results.

Jason


It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the
results". This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the
entire time since I first read his beautiful papers.
Understanding is never free.


For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic 
computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very 
platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything 
extra to get the result.  You are the result.


Jason

Jason,

That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark 
upon! It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the 
kind of world we observe. We observe a classical world where things 
don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite 
connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion 
to be explained!


Does 38 have any factors?

Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps?

Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible 
answer.  Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it, 
implement it or think it.  They would be either true or false even if 
nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it.


Hi Jason,

You are missing the point. There is the Truth and there is the 
ability to know of it. The former is immaterial, independent of any one 
of us. The latter is physical, we must work to have it.




If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could 
even say the question "Does program xyz contain conscious entities?" 
is a mathematical question.  If it is true, then there exist conscious 
entities.


We have to be able to communicate...



Your requirement that there be some "real" implementation for 
computation leads to an infinite regress.  What "real" computer is our 
universe running on?


The underlying Quantum's unitary transformation.



Jason




--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

2012-09-21 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" 
> wrote:
>
>   On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>>   On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>>>
>>> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics,
>>> then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using
>>> only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use
>>> millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition,
>>> and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?
>>>
>>> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be
>>> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute
>>> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that
>>> shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in
>>> empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the
>>> computations.
>>>
>>
>>  Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access
>> the results.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be
>>> functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced
>>> to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of
>>> silicon?
>>
>>
>>  We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out
>> the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then
>> get the result of any computation.  The problem is we are slow at doing
>> this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do
>> with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could.
>>
>>  It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are
>> already there.  The problem is learning their results.
>>
>>  Jason
>>
>>   It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results". This
>> is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first
>> read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.
>>
>>
>  For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation
> may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation
> in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result.
>  You are the result.
>
>  Jason
>
> Jason,
>
> That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark upon!
> It is how everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind of world
> we observe. We observe a classical world where things don't work with
> infinite resources or infinite speed or infinite connectivity. We are
> asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be explained!
>
>
>  Does 38 have any factors?
>
>  Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps?
>
>  Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible answer.
>  Their truth is established whether or not we test it, ask it, implement it
> or think it.  They would be either true or false even if nothing existed
> for us to have any hope of answering it.
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> You are missing the point. There is the Truth and there is the ability
> to know of it. The former is immaterial, independent of any one of us. The
> latter is physical, we must work to have it.
>
>
If you accept platonism then why do you always give Bruno trouble over
there needing to be a physical universe in which to run the UD?


>
>
>  If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could even
> say the question "Does program xyz contain conscious entities?" is a
> mathematical question.  If it is true, then there exist conscious entities.
>
>
> We have to be able to communicate...
>
>
This isn't hard to explain.  Some programs contain multiple interacting
entities.


>
>
>  Your requirement that there be some "real" implementation for
> computation leads to an infinite regress.  What "real" computer is our
> universe running on?
>
>
> The underlying Quantum's unitary transformation.
>
>
>
>  Jason
>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+u

Re: Numbers in Space



On 21 Sep 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 9/21/2012 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before  
giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They  
don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or  
if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave  
respectfully of course.


  Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are  
algorithms hiding in a puppet.


In that case comp is false.



   No, it is not false. Only the strong version of step 8 is false.


All steps follows from comp.

If something more is used in step 8: tell me what, but don't confuse a  
conclusion with an assumption, as you did before.


I suggest a point: which is that step 8 uses:  sup-phys + comp => 323.

Most people up to now agree that this follows from comp. It is hard to  
formalize this, as sup-phys is hard to formalize by itself. Indeed you  
can easily build ad hoc theory of matter which contradicts this. Yet,  
when people effectively define such ad hoc notion of primitive matter,  
without magic, it becomes Turing emulable, and their argument becomes  
an argument either against comp, by making the magic non Turing  
emulable, or an argument for lowering down the level, not for the  
invalidity of sup-phys + comp => 323.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Numbers in Space

2012-09-21 Thread meekerdb


On 9/21/2012 8:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sep 21, 2012, at 6:55 AM, "Stephen P. King" > wrote:



On 9/21/2012 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote:


On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of 
physics, then
shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only
empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use 
millimeters
or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and
multiplication and directly program from our mind to space?

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be
constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute 
position
independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that 
shouldn't
matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty 
space
with our minds should also give us access to the results of the 
computations.


Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access the 
results.


What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be
functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally 
prejudiced
to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of 
silicon?


We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the 
future
evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the 
result of
any computation.  The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build 
machines
that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and 
accuracy
than we ever could.

It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already 
there.
 The problem is learning their results.

Jason


It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results". This is 
what I
have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his 
beautiful
papers. Understanding is never free.


For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take 
resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then 
you don't need to do anything extra to get the result.  You are the result.


Jason

Jason,

That is not the point! I think we all agree on what you remark upon! It is how 
everything gets partitioned up so that we have the kind of world we observe. We observe 
a classical world where things don't work with infinite resources or infinite speed or 
infinite connectivity. We are asking for the fact that we observe an illusion to be 
explained!


Does 38 have any factors?

Does program xyz stop in fewer than 10^100 steps?

Both of these are mathematical questions with only one possible answer.  Their truth is 
established whether or not we test it, ask it, implement it or think it.  They would be 
either true or false even if nothing existed for us to have any hope of answering it.


If you mathematically defined what programs are conscious you could even say the 
question "Does program xyz contain conscious entities?" is a mathematical question.  If 
it is true, then there exist conscious entities.


But a statement can be true, "Sherlock Holmes live on Baker Street." without implying any 
existence.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

Hi Jason Resch 

In the Platonic world space and time don't exist.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/21/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-21, 01:19:04
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space





On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King  wrote:

On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then 
shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty 
space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck 
lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and 
directly program from our mind to space? 

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly 
flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent 
of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow 
since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds 
should also give us access to the results of the computations.



Right this is already the case. ?hat we can use our minds to access the results.
?

What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to 
say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon?


We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the 
future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the 
result of any computation. ?he problem is we are slow at doing this, so we 
build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater 
speed and accuracy than we ever could.


It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already 
there. ?he problem is learning their results.


Jason


?? It takes the consumption of resources to "learn the results". This is what I 
have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his 
beautiful papers. Understanding is never free.




For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may 
take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in 
question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. ?ou are 
the result.


Jason
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

Hi Stephen P. King 

If by "exist" I mean physically exi,sts
and by "lives" I mean nonphysically exists,
Then

Computers exist.
Computer programs live.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/21/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-20, 20:50:22
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space


On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp.
>
> If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of 
> physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal 
> machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why 
> can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our 
> enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from 
> our mind to space?
>
> Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be 
> constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute 
> position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but 
> that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly 
> program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to 
> the results of the computations.
>
> What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
> functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally 
> prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the 
> computations of silicon?
>
>
> Craig

Hey Craig,

 What do you think physical computers actually are? "universal 
machines using only empty space". But Nature hates a vacuum...

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Numbers in Space

Hi Stephen P. King  

Platonia doesn't exist, it lives. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/21/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-20, 21:28:02 
Subject: Re: Numbers in Space 


On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:  



On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 

Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. 

If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then 
shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty 
space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck 
lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and 
directly program from our mind to space?  

Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly 
flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent 
of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow 
since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds 
should also give us access to the results of the computations. 



Right this is already the case.  That we can use our minds to access the 
results. 

Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When we 
lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of space. 
We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness. 
  



What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be 
functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to 
say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? 


We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the 
future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the 
result of any computation.  The problem is we are slow at doing this,  

Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in Platonia? 
Why aren't we in Platonia now? 

Hi Craig, 

We are! We just don't "feel" it... 



so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with 
greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. 

Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed? 


What is the speed of light? Same question! 






It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already 
there.  The problem is learning their results. 

The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do 
anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. 
We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without 
something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it 
makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant 
to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed 
non-locally. Why 'do' anything? 


Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt 
Olympia. 



--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Numbers in Space