> Well if you take any finite portion of the universe then you have a
> finite amount of matter, this finite amount of matter has a finite set
> of possible permutations hence for a given block of universes of the
> same size there is only a finite set of possible arrangement of the
> matter in those. The light speed is a constant means also that if the
> universe is infinite and unbounded there exists totally causaly
> disconnect finite block of "universe" inside the universe.
This is only true from the perspective of someone within the Universe. From
an "outside" perspective, the Universe is locally connected throughout. The
same CBR that reaches us also reaches parts of the Universe that are not in
our light-cone.
> The only thing that matters for the UD is that it is a supertask
> assuming physical primary (I'd say level 0) real... But then if
> computationalism is true then you couldn't make a test that will prove
> a level 0... you cannot distinguish between level of "simulation" and
> as such a level 0 is nonsense for me.
I'm not certain you are correct. A Turing machine with infinite input would
be qualitatively different in more ways than this. For one obvious example,
there is no blank space to the right of an infinite tape, which prevents it
from computing anything that needs that extra memory without overwriting
input... So a Turing machine with infinite input with two tapes (one blank)
would be more powerful than a similar machine with only one input. Standard
Turing machines are all reducible to a single tape, in contrast. There's
also a question of the reachability of some of the input, given that a
finite set of production rules would not allow some of the tape to be
recognized. There's a good reason we don't talk about Turing machines of
infinite input; it's because we can't formulate a good model for them
because we are naturally bound to using language (which is infinite, but the
strings are always finite) to describe the machines...our perspective biases
us to finite machines.
> Well everything is always finite data...
I disagree. :) Everything we deal with is finite because our ability to
handle information is finite. That doesn't mean it is fundamentally
reducible to the finite realm.
Anna
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Nov 19 2008 - 19:36:32 PST