Make the complete description of an apple the input of the right computer program, and the pattern resulting from the sequence of all states of the computation will be the apple.
This is still nonsense. If I have a computer made only of naturally occurring atomic elements, and I use it to simulate a plutonium nucleus, are you saying I now actually have a plutonium nucleus there?
Substance? What's that?
It's what things are made of.
If I have a computer made only of naturally occurring atomic elements, and I use it to simulate a plutonium nucleus, are you saying I now actually have a plutonium nucleus there?
"Actually have" is vague and should probably be tabooed. Yes, in that there is a causal structure there isomorphic to a plutonium nucleus; no, in that this causal structure has the wrong relationship to you.
It has been well over a year since I first read Permutation City and relating writings on the internet on Greg Egan's dust theory. It still haunts me. The theory has been discussed tangentially in this community, but I haven't found an article that directly addresses the rationality of Egan's own dismissal of the theory.
In the FAQ, Egan says things like:
and:
Isn't this, along with so many other problems, a candidate for our sometime friend the anthropic principle? That is: only in a conscious configuration field which has memories of perceptions of an orderly universe is the dust theory controversial or doubted? In the vastly more numerous conscious configuration fields with memories of perceptions of a chaotic and disorderly universe lacking a rational way to support the observer the dust theory could be accepted a priori or at least be a favored theory.
It is fine to dismiss dust theory because it simply isn't very helpful and because it has no predictions, testable or otherwise. I suppose it is also fine never to question the nature of consciousness as the answers don't seem to lead anywhere helpful either; though the question of it will continue to vex some instances of these configuration states.