ZeroFries

Great to see the forum mods doing the best they can

Have you done the cost:benefit analysis? Curious what makes you so confident that "crashing the economy" (you're aware of all the excess death and despair this would cause?) is the best move here.

The federal government doesn't "hoard" land around areas where people would want to purchase a first home. The vast majority of crown land is not around any major urban centers.

Canadian tech workers make way above median income levels.

Even with the prices of commodities falling, stock prices can still rise, and as long as this is higher than the deflationary rate, investing still beats hoarding.

Although it's the riskiest time for deer, I love centering my road trips around dusk, so that you get some daylight, some golden hour softness, a beautiful sunset, and some darkness. It feels like a complete experience that way, a miniature but whole life cycle.

Sensations are not just information. A number is information. There's something that it's like to experience a sensation. There's nothing that it's like to be a number.

No, it's not. The argument rests on the fact that it can't be solely discrete across the entire system. The discrete information needs to "come-together" in a non-discrete way, e.g. something like quantum coherence. This is the binding-problem in a nutshell.

All quanta arise from the wave-equations and can be modeled with continuous mathematics.

There's no reason to believe qualia arise in a given discrete computation. Why would they? In what steps in the algorithm do qualia arise and why, what characteristics do they have, what causal roles do they play, etc.

It's completely self-evident we experience qualia. It's what our experiences are made of. There wouldn't be anything to experience or discuss if we didn't. The brain is not a deliberate, man-made object like a computer is, hence why it can possess these properties with us being unaware of how (they were selected for via evolution), but the computer cannot.

Self-driving cars don't experience visual qualia. A model is not the same as an actual experience. There's no binding-problem to solve with self-driving cars because there's no attempts to make them conscious. It's a completely different thing.

Lots of reasons. You need energy to store the information. You wouldn't be gaining anything, only losing efficiency. The quantum level is the "lowest" level of existence, there's nothing "lower" to use to simulate it. Furthermore, "random" is a critical concept in QM, and one can never achieve true random with a TM. What's the digital algorithm to generate a truly random number?

Edit: in a way simulating a crab with a bunch of crabs would be kind of like simulating energy dynamics/QM with energy

Your left and right visual fields are united in one "space". Classical computation cannot achieve such unity. Digital computation concerns discrete parts changing in discrete steps, which is not like a field at all.

The law of large numbers let's you abstract in such a way that the group can appear simpler than the individual unit. Of course, to fully simulate it across every single possible scenario, one would need to model all the individual units in order to accurately model the group, and so technically the group is more complex to fully model.