A software is a very specific physical law. It says that if you arrange matter and energy in a very specific yet generalized way, they will behave in a very specific yet generalized way, regardless of where in the known universe that happens.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
No it is not a physical law. The causality of the substrate has zero to do with the apparent causality in the software. 50 substrates. Steam, abacus, electronics... 50 different sets of natural causality. 1 software/model. Not a physical law.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Dr_Cuspy
I don’t follow your arguments. The computational automaton of the software is fully realized in the causal structure of the substrate, via a series of successive functional descriptions, each abstracting the previous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
1. Assume electronics is the substrate. The causality of the substrate is the electromagnetism of the electronic switches. Say a memory location or register. The real physical causality of the electronics is deeply degenerately related to anything in the software.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2. The causality of the substrate and the causality in the abstractions in the software have zero correlation an any physics sense that normally forms part of a scientific account.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
3 (Last). This is the concern behind my reply. The confusion of software (a computer exploration of a model) with natural causality is pervasive and I tend to react a bit when I see it! I hope it makes sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't think that there is 'natural' causality. Causality only emerges when decomposing a description of the universe into interacting systems. I think the description of the behavior of an abacus or electronic circuity via the macrostates of the software is a valid abstraction.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.