From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jun 20 2002 - 00:17:35 MDT
Mike writes
> [Hal wrote]
> > Actually I was not claiming this, and I don't think my argument depends
> > on it. My claim was only that computer programs and even executions of
> > programs exist in the same abstract sense that numbers and geometric
> > shape exists. I am undecided on the issue of whether "passive" data
> > could have the same properties.
>
> I'm generally not. While a passive structure may contain the pattern of
> a sentient being (as a dead body in cryostasis purportedly does as a
> passive structure), that being, as a record is not necessarily conscious
> or alive. The record would need to be executing on some kernel
> executable to gain life.
I think that Hal and Rafal would merely argue that we cannot entirely
dismiss out of hand the possibility that passive structures (i.e. with
out the magical dimension of time) could be conscious. But most people,
I think, including you and me, regard that as quite speculative if not
highly unlikely.
> [Hal wrote]
> > So, here is a structure which is (in a sense) static and yet it does
> > contain conscious entities. So this might give us some reason to think
> > that static entities can contain consciousness if they have the right
> > kind of internal structure.
>
> Yes, exactly so. The difficulty being able to navigate in four
> dimensions.... an exercise left for the reader.
>
> Furthermore, a four dimensional record is to be considered a simulation.
> A three dimensional record that remains static in the fourth dimension
> is a database and not an executable. Four dimensionality should be
> considered a necessary component of a simulation (using our physical
> laws).
You probably don't want to tie your remarks down to these
particular dimensions and numbers, for you would probably
agree that beings in 2 dimensional flatland could be
conscious if their space were also graced with time.
Conway's Life is a two dimensional structure that is easily
proved to support gate logic and all known forms of
computation. And Wolfram has, so I've heard, exhibited
one dimensional entities that, if also graced by time,
can calculate anything.
Our views on this may stand or fall depending on just how
special the time "dimension" is. Some people, like Prigogene,
really go all out to say how different and special it is,
although I think he goes too far.
Mitch writes
> Is it fantasy or magical science to then invoke an information
> theory that would include a 5th physical dimension, as in
> Randall-Sundarsham theory, or Kaluza-Klein, for that matter?
> Does the universe possess a kind of automatic checksum feature
> that records arbitrary data?
I don't know what you mean by the latter question, but the
respectable physics theories that I have heard about that
deal in higher dimensions keep time in a separate category.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:55 MST