Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Walter Bushell <proto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1iwzmsy.vytzq6x7ubowN%john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Walter Bushell <proto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1iwzj2f.oe7xe420j69qN%john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Of course. It's like the mistake of thinking that because genes can be
*represented* as information, that what they do is computational, when
in fact they are just molecules doing thermodynamic and other physical
things.

And do you stipulate, deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers
being any different in that regard?

There are two ways one can represent an information processing system:

1. As a physical system that moves energy and mass around in causal
ways. This means that there are causal differences between any two
tokens of any other kind of class - computers and humans are *not* the
same thing. Nor am I exactly the same thing as you.

2. As an abstract system that falls within one of a number of
equivalence classes. So you can *represent* me and my Mac as Turing
machines. But the equivalence lies solely in the representation.

The reason why we represent information processing systems as IPSs (or
as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is
because it suits *us* to do so for some purpose, usually for
manipulation of inferences. But that only works when there is a godo
approximation of the abstraction in the physical thing. It works *very*
well to represent my Mac as a Turing Machine, because, except when
there's overheating, or a power outage, or limitations on the media, or
a memory fault..., it works very like one. Brains have aspectsw that can
be represented that way as well.

But I hold to what I call the Inverse Eleatic Principle - if there are
physical differences, there are *causal* differences, and so these
abstractions won't hold true once you get to a level of detail where
they start to break down. Neurons are not the sorts of gates one finds
in Artificial Neural Networks. If a circuit does induction on
neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits
because they have reached physical limits, then the system no longer
behaves like that abstraction, and you *musT8 revert to the physical
description.

In short, abstract equivalence classes are isntrumentally useful, not
metaphysically necessary.

Genes simply do not instantiate anything like any of the key properties
of abstactions for IPSs. It's an intentional illusion (the sense of
"intention" here is philosophical - it looks like it's "about"
something, when it's just a causal cog that causes the something to be).

Can't decide if this a good explanation of a difference, or a thesis on
how many angels can dance on the head of Zippy the Pinhead.

Any system as complex as life that keeps itself going for billions of
years sure looks like an effective message information system. Your mac
will not last for even a short time like a century.

What's the message?

No, I'm serious. Even in electronics, the message exists only
when there is agreement among sender and recipiant as to the
meaning conveyed by various symbols. That's the *only* difference
between a stream of totally random numbers and a secret message.

Put in a simpler and more idiotic way, stones have been rolling
downhill on earth for over 4 billion years. What's the message
in that that renders stones special in any way?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... as Turing machines, or as Algorithmic Information Systems, etc.) is ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
    ... deny or remain agnostic about humans and computers ... But the equivalence lies solely in the representation. ... The reason why we represent information processing systems as IPSs (or ... neighbouring circuits, or there's quantum tunneling between circuits ...
    (talk.origins)