Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
>Dear Quentin et al,
>
> I keep reading this claim that "only the existence of the algorithm
>itself is necessary" and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for
>mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation
>in terms of some Platonic Number, is sufficient to give a model of that can
>be used to derive anything like the world of appearences that we have.
>
>
Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This
is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain
the physics and the objects.
This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for the Ether
for waves to propagate? The most up-to-date answer is that waves carry
their own "physical substrate." They can be waves and/or particles.
Similarly there should be equivalence between information and
matter/energy. Thus a process or algorithm should have inherently within
itself its own physical substrate.
Since information is observer-dependent (Shannon) this issue brings us
back to the observer. I think that eventually all observables will have
to be traced back to the observer who is in fact at the nexus of the
mind-body problem.
George
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 20:54:09 PDT