stromgo · HackerTrans

قبل 3 سنواتdiscuss

Maybe it helps to consider all 4 possibilities for the sign of the gravitational mass of antimatter, and the sign of the inertial mass of antimatter?

(-,-): antimatter would fall down, but we could break conservation laws with a mechanism.

(+,-): antimatter would fall up, but we could break conservation laws with a mechanism using electrically charged particles.

(-,+): antimatter would fall up, but ruled out by the experiment.

So what remains is (+,+)?

stromgo

قبل 6 سنواتdiscuss

We do know that the real world is richer than the simulated world, since it holds a computer that runs the simulated world. Therefore if you exist, then it's more likely that you're the result of evolution in the real world than the result of evolution in the simulated world.

Imagine the warehouse-size computer that is needed to simulate a bacterium here on Earth. Computers are dusty, and dust contains bacteria, so if you're a bacterium, then it's more likely that you're one of the billions of bacteria in the dust on the computer, than the bacterium being simulated by the computer. The same reasoning should hold for other worlds.

stromgo

قبل 6 سنواتdiscuss

I'll answer the energetic question. Splitting water produces oxygen and hydrogen, so with our oxygen we have the choice between burning hydrogen or burning Titan's hydrocarbons. Burning the hydrogen would bring us back to square one, so the question is whether burning hydrocarbons yields more energy than burning hydrogen. It appears to not be the case. Some numbers I found online:

  burning 1 mole of O2 with hydrogen yields 572 kJ
  burning 1 mole of O2 with methane yields 444 kJ
  burning 1 mole of O2 with butane yields 443 kJ
  burning 1 mole of O2 with octane yields 437 kJ
  burning 1 mole of O2 with glucose yields 467 kJ

https://personal.utdallas.edu/~metin/Merit/MyNotes/energySci...

https://www.ausetute.com.au/fuelenergy.html

stromgo

قبل 7 سنواتdiscuss

When you said

> With consciousness, the emergentists are not capable of pointing at the first principle, or building block.

...it sounded like there were no plausible candidates. If computation is a candidate, then it's certainly something they can point at (with the caveat that it's only a candidate and not currently testable). I think if instead you had written something along those lines and avoided the words "not capable of", then hoseja and I wouldn't have reacted.

stromgo

قبل 7 سنواتdiscuss

Consciousness is a computation, and neurons are certainly capable of elementary computation.

So the building block has been pointed at (neurons), and its property given (computation). Is the problem that you don't believe that consciousness can emerge from elementary computation, or you believe that it is possible but we have no proof of it?

comments