<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 4:02 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 22/02/2026 16:03, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 8:45 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 22/02/2026 11:41, John K Clark wrote:<br>
><br>
> > ... it's impossible to process data without physics<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Very good point. And further, it's impossible for information to even exist without some kind of physical embodiment.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Physical embodiment is only necessary for some information to be learned by you.<br>
<br>
What??<br>
I don't know how you reckon that.<br>
Embodiment is necessary for any and all information, full stop. This has nothing to do with me.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You are extrapolating to a conclusion that in my opinion is not justified. It is analogous to someone who has only encountered one red object concluding there can only be one red thing because it's the only red thing they've ever seen.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In this case, your only experience of information is physically embodied information, and you extrapolate from this to the conclude that information can only exist when it is physically embodied.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But note this is simply an extrapolation from your limited experience as a being in this universe. It's not a logical argument, nor a proof, nor any kind of reliable evidence.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> But I don't see from this fact you reached the conclusion that information can only exist physically. It is like saying you know other universes (besides this one) can't exist, because information can only exist in this one.<br>
<br>
No, it's not. I'm not saying that. You are straw-manning my argument.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am sorry if I mischaracterized it. If I got it wrong then I am curious to know what is your argument for why information can only exist if it's embodied in this physical universe (but not in any kind of other mathematical structure)?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> ...<br>
><br>
> That's all that needs to be said, really.<br>
><br>
> 1) It rules out the existence of a 'Platonic realm' containing all of maths, because maths is full of things that need to be calculated in order for them to be known.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Unless you claim that all the results of all the calculations that are possible, already exist (an infinite number).<br>
><br>
><br>
> That is the claim, yes. See page 45 here, about how LISP computers, defining the final execution state of any LISP program, exist in pure number theory: <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0404335" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0404335</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
That's total gibberish to me. I'm no mathematician, I don't even understand negative numbers, but it doesn't matter. You say Yes, that's the claim (all possible results of all possible calculations exist somehow, in some fantasmal realm). So my question is, how is this infinite amount of information embodied? Because if it isn't embodied, it doesn't exist.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is what we are debating. I question your claim that physical embodiment is required. How do you justify that?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If you ask how I see the information existing, when not physically embodied that is why I point to the paper above. Computations, even complete executions of programs (of unlimited complexity) exist as a consequence of true relationships between numbers.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I realize this sounds crazy. It took me many years to develop an understanding of for how this works. Even mathematicians were astonished and couldn't believe it when the result was published in 1970 ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_tenth_problem">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_tenth_problem</a> ).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sounding so crazy of course means the bar should be very high for acceptance (extraordinary claims...) but fortunately there is ample empirical evidence for this. If we presume it is true, we can explain many facts of our physical universe that otherwise we can't explain.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
><br>
> And then, 2) you'd need to explain how this infinite amount of information can exist without any physical embodiment.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This is akin to someone who has lived within a virtual reality simulation their whole life saying "it is impossible for information to exist without some kind of virtual embodiment," and then concluding on this premise, that "for some hypothetical physical world (underlying this virtual reality) to exist, you'd need to explain how all that physical information can exist without any virtual embodiment."<br>
<br>
No, it's not.<br>
Virtual embodiment of information is still embodiment, and is based on a physical layer. Information can only exist if it is embodied, regardless of how.<br>
My point is that a platonic realm cannot exist, because it would have to contain information, but has no way to do that.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If you allow another lower level below a virtual level, how do we rule out the existence of another layer (possibly platonic/mathematical) existing below the physical, which embodies they physical information?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Don't try to muddy the water by invoking alternate universes and virtual realities, these things are irrelevant to the central point.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think it is central to my argument. If any number of nested layers of computed worlds can exist, how can any layer determine itself to be the base level? Why can't physical reality exist on top of the substrate of platonic computations?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
...<br>
<br>
> As I asked John, what powers all the computation, what stores all the information, the universe uses to compute its evolution? If you say the universe itself, then the universe is a structure that can compute and store information on its own. Why should the universe be the only structure with these properties?<br>
<br>
Nobody is claiming it is.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Then perhaps our positions are not too far from each other. If structures like our universe can exist and compute on their own, then other structures, such as Turing machines can also exist and compute on their own. The resulting picture that emerges is little different from Platonism: the set of all possible structures existing on their own, and computing on their own when they are structures that support computation.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The claim is that in order for there to be structure, there must be something to be structured. IOW, information must be embodied.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is our physical universe embodied?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
> If that were somehow possible, what would then be the point of the physical world? Why would it even exist? That would be the biggest violation of Occam's Razor possible.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Not at all. The universe is the structure that emerges with the least information complexity required to explain your present state of conscious experience. This is an outcome of algorithmic information theory. See this paper for details about how much of physical law can be extracted purely from starting with the assumption of observer states and seeing what algorithmic information theory implies for what typical observers will see: <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826</a> It is fascinating.<br>
<br>
No, it's not fascinating, it's more muddy water. (And I'm pretty sure the structure of the universe is not dependent on my conscious experience).<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ask yourself, "what is the basis for this belief?"</div><div dir="auto">Is there a reason behind it or is it just a rejection of the new and unfamiliar?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Note this is not a fringe or crackpot idea, just one that is little known/appreciated outside of theoretical physics. Greats such as Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, John Wheeler, Stephen Hawking, etc. have all endorsed this idea, among many others.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In the past, they lacked evidence connecting this idea to empirically verifiable observations. We have that now.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There is at this time, no alternative theory that explains the universe as we see it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
><br>
> There's no information processing, or even any information to be processed, without the physical world.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Again, try to apply this reasoning for the observer stuck in a virtual reality.<br>
<br>
Again, that has nothing to do with it. Virtual realities, no matter how deeply stacked, are still part of the physical world.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Would you agree that we can't know whether what we take to be our universe is a virtual one or a base physical one?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If so, do you see my point that the physical universe could itself be part of something larger, and more fundamental? Therefore, we can't be certain what the source of the underlying computations running behind our universe ultimately is.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> <br>
><br>
> Any possible 'platonic realm' would have to be another physical world, but with an infinite information capacity (and probably no time dimension).<br>
><br>
><br>
> The experience of time is a subjective phenomenon, an illusion. Spacetime itself does not evolve. You can thus view the entire universe as a sort of static four-dimensional object.<br>
<br>
I don't really know about the time thing, that was just an afterthought. The point is: Where is the infinite amount of information? It's certainly not in this universe.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is created by the infinity of true relationships that exist between numbers. The simplest path to see this is to recognize that there are equations whose solutions correspond to the execution of every computable function. So if numbers, and the truths concerning them, exist, then all computations exist. It is the barest imaginable TOE, it assumes only arithmetic. All the rest, universes, warts and all, can be shown to fall out from this.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That the ultimate answer is so simple reminds me of this quote:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling, that when—in a decade, a century, or a millennium—we grasp it, we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid for so long?"</div><div dir="auto">-- John Archibald Wheeler in “How Come the Quantum?” (1986)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Let's make it simpler. You claim that /disembodied/ information can exist (please say if this is not your claim).<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don't know what you mean by body, so I will define that here and answer your question under different definitions:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If by embodied you mean "instantiated within this physical universe by some arrangement of particles or fields," then I would say disembodied information can exist outside such a narrow definition of embodiment. For example, consider the information contained in Chaitin's omega constant ( <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constant</a> ).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If by embodied information, you mean "instantiated in some objective structure," then I would say disembodied information doesn't exist. But note that this loose definition of structure includes other possible universes z mathematical objects, sets, integers, geometric forms, etc.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
So, I'm asking you to give evidence that such a thing is possible. In fact, why don't you send us some?<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">See the "Empirical Evidence and Predictions" section under <a href="https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/resch-s-platonic-functionalism">https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/resch-s-platonic-functionalism</a></div><div dir="auto">Or: <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(sorry, that's facetious, I know. I just get frustrated when people persist in trying to justify utter nonsense and/or try to derail the conversation from its main point)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think you just don't care to learn or change your mind in response to new information. I can only hope others on this mailing list have benefitted from our discussion.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div></div>