Re: If someone just took a minute to listen to me

On Mar 23, 10:28 am, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Step 1:
Why would you build a model of the world that doesn't work, thats a
waste of time to do that intentionally...

ignoring code... since its just a "proto-hypothesis" worthless
<snip>

Directly applies to your idea...

It applies to any conjecture.

No it applies to your conjecture since your conjecture is the one
making the claim we should build a model that doesn't work

In step 1 it doesn't work.

In step 3 it does.

That's why there are 3 steps.

I can't believe we're going over this again.

Wow.


"This
computer world doesn't have to be, nor should it be, perfectly
compatible with the laws of physics as we know them."

Hmmm, I think the criticism applies perfectly directly to your
paper....

Step 1 of the paper, yes.

Guess what.

There are other steps!


<snip>
It starts with:

"define class absoluteMatter as custom"

and ends with:

"enddefine"

as I said... look up formal logic and the concept of proper
definition....

First of all, science is not formal logic. If it was, we wouldn't need
the word "science".

Next, you define an electron.

All you're going to do is give it a name, give it a family, and list
some of its mathematical properties and describe its interactions with
other things.

But you'll do it all in natural language.

That's basically how I went about defining the monad (absoluteMatter).

Except I did it in computer code. It's more formal.


<snip>
The idea is, what if the monads defined in the physical resources
arrange into their own structures, like atoms, molecules, cells,
tissues, and organs, something very brain -like.

Yeah except thats not the idea you expressed in your paper...


Yes I did. Here's a quote:

"A more refined computer world may exhibit complexity that somewhat
resembles nuclei and atoms, and then even molecules and cells. In
fact, a rather advanced computer world could display complexity that
resembles a neural network thereby creating a new virtual resource for
information to reside. "

You must not have read very carefully.

Give it another try.


so
change away... that is already being looked into, take a look into
claytronics... look at any simulations of late of cells in the
computer.... look at the computational estimates required in-fact SGI
I believe helped realistically model a virus in the computer...


Thanks.


That brain is an information store.

Yes and if its in the computer then the computer is the information
store... if your trying to make monads into computational elements now
you have to define how they work.

They work according to the rules defined in the computer code.


For example what logic is used
boolean, modal, natural, propositional, categorical, conditional,
deductive, inductive, oh wait you don't even know what half of those
are... does it use logic circuits or something different

Boolean logic works.

The essential technology is Object Oriented Programming.


There is a second set of information in there, in a unique resource.

Fine that is store in the hard disk....

It doesn't communicate with the first, it is a consequence of the
information in the first.

Fine add 2+2 put result here , the computer does this all the time...

The information in the first set adds 2+2 and stores the result.

But in that example, there is ONE set of information.

One physical resource. The electrons.

What I'm saying is monads stored in the electrons become their own
electrons, and then store their own information.

That second set of information cannot be accessed with computer code
because its not stored in real electrons.

But human intelligence should hopefully recognize the complex patterns
in the first set as the new set information.
.

Quantcast