RE: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:52:48 -0700

Norman writes

> If it hasn't been proposed before, let me offer the "Norman
> Hypothesis." It's probably not falsifiable or provable, but I
> haven't let that slow me down.
> In the Norman Hypothesis, there is no "real" universe. Turing
> Machine X simulates Turing Machine Y, which simulates Turing
> Machine Z, . . ., which simulates Turing Machine X.

Yes, I too seriously doubt if that is falsifiable.

But I get the same feeling I got when I watched Terminator II.
If a robot comes from the future and warns us never to build
a certain chip, then fine, the chip (and that future) never
exist. A loop has been excised from time. But the nagging
question is, "where did the loop come from in the first place?".

Any self-sustaining hypothesis may be generated, I suppose.
Perhaps it's only a Judeo-Christian prejudiced mindset that
needs to know where things came from. (Embodying as that
does a concept of time.)

Lee
Received on Sat Sep 10 2005 - 16:51:54 PDT