> The problem is that we can make predictions that apply outside particle
> accelerators - for example, that radioactive isotopes of potassium will
>decay at certain rates. And they do.
Yes but only when you look at the radioactive isotopes of potassium ; I don't
know about you but I haven't done that in, gee, it must have been days.
>Everywhere we look these rules are being followed
But what about far more numerous places we haven't looked?
> To know in advance all possible consequences of a simplification to the
> rules and know that will produce no contradictions implies a knowledge
> of the future incompatible with a sim.
Is there any reason to think that our world contains no contradictions?
We probably wouldn't recognize such a thing anyway, we'd just say
there must be some new physical law we don't understand yet, or call it
another manifestation of quantum weirdness.
> Something with infinite computation can't think, for example, it's
>already thought of everything.
I don't think that's true but even if it is so what, that's it's problem not ours.
>Besides, infinite computation is about a magic as such things get.
True beyond doubt, but maybe magic exists. And you're right, we probably face a
Dysonian end-game and not the sort of climax to the universe Tipler describes,
but there might not be any deep logical reason for that, it could be pure chance,
such as the fact that 9 planets circle the sun. There is nothing special about the
number 9, other stars have a different number of planets and perhaps other
universes are closed making infinite computation possible.
John K Clark email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT