- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:32:11 -0700

Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:

*> Jacques:
*

*>
*

*> > You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem
*

*> > simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest.
*

I agree with Jacques that trying to define a computer is ridiculous. But

if we must choose one, there is a way to pick the simplest:

No real computer at all.

Just the illusion of one is sufficient. In fact, for the same virtual

zero cost, we could have the illusion of all possible virtual

computers!

*>
*

*>
*

*> What we need is something that is minimal (generates all
*

*> configurations) AND computationally universal (capable of
*

*> performing any computation)... thus generating ALL programs.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Joel
*

Let me elaborate on the use of the Zen non-computer. But this requires

the concept of first person... something that Marchal is in the process

of explaining... and which is not universally accepted in this list.....

Let's start with a Plenitude of all possible states. Some of those

states may happen to be logically connected AS IF they were sequentially

ordered computer states. No real links join those states... just virtual

links. It seems pretty obvious that whether a real computer follows

those links or a virtual one, is irrelevant. We could imagine the set of

all possible virtual computers generating the set of all possible

virtual links joining those states.

Are we, as observer, going to observe all those possible states linked

by all those virtual computers? Of course not!

Anthropic filtering restricts the set of states to those consistent with

the psyche of the observer.

The important thing is that they are linked from the point of view of

the first person observer in a manner consistent with the psyche of the

observer.

The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can

observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The

rest is first person emergent.

George

Received on Sun Jul 01 2001 - 17:35:02 PDT

Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:32:11 -0700

Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:

I agree with Jacques that trying to define a computer is ridiculous. But

if we must choose one, there is a way to pick the simplest:

No real computer at all.

Just the illusion of one is sufficient. In fact, for the same virtual

zero cost, we could have the illusion of all possible virtual

computers!

Let me elaborate on the use of the Zen non-computer. But this requires

the concept of first person... something that Marchal is in the process

of explaining... and which is not universally accepted in this list.....

Let's start with a Plenitude of all possible states. Some of those

states may happen to be logically connected AS IF they were sequentially

ordered computer states. No real links join those states... just virtual

links. It seems pretty obvious that whether a real computer follows

those links or a virtual one, is irrelevant. We could imagine the set of

all possible virtual computers generating the set of all possible

virtual links joining those states.

Are we, as observer, going to observe all those possible states linked

by all those virtual computers? Of course not!

Anthropic filtering restricts the set of states to those consistent with

the psyche of the observer.

The important thing is that they are linked from the point of view of

the first person observer in a manner consistent with the psyche of the

observer.

The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can

observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The

rest is first person emergent.

George

Received on Sun Jul 01 2001 - 17:35:02 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*