On the Natural Science of Computation

Anthropic questions; and even harder, if not impossible, self-location within emergent computational optimization processes, like life itself, I think would perhaps be more meaningfully thought of as decision theoretic systems, in either time or space, modulo some notion of equivalence, and within a computational universe.

I consider Turing machine observers as decision problems in time and space first, then on the mathematician’s tool of a sheaf. Can they be reduced to PSPACE in some natural manner, whereby they are embedded in a quantum universe?

As a quantum computational philosopher, this makes for a contemporary retake of Spinoza’s sense of determinism in The Ethics within a computational setting.  Is his sense of determinism, especially from-the-inside of a quantum computer, possibly even more ontologically correct than our intuitive, open-ended and arbitrary-seeming one, within an infinite universe? 

What would be a natural computational ethics for algorithmic machines of various kinds, [do grammar hierarchies matter for ethical considerations between them] those with different essential resources, such as memory, and distributed memories, possessing computable perspectives in physics–local memories with time-stamps and/or quantum mechanical wave-function variations, with shared time-stamps–in common, versus say algorithmic resources of time or space, only? The latter is how the academic theory community currently defines computational complexity classes in theoretical computer science. As it stands, I think the “complexity zoo” is not complete, and it certainly could not entail agents-like-us. I am interested in agents-like-us, situated in a quantum mechanical world.