Sorry, what I meant was: if you’re comparing an otherwise identical scenario with two 1kg computers or one 2kg computer (and they’re physically the same, just sliced in half or not), you need an extra bit to individually identify one of the two 1kg computers that you don’t need to include when it’s a single 2kg computer. You’re right that in a general scenario the difference is probably not exactly 1 bit—which actually aligns more closely with my intuitions than the idea that a 2kg computer is always “twice as real” as a 1kg one.
I think it depends on how you do the identification, right? If your identification is simply “Find the simplest set of directions that takes the universe as input and outputs the computer,” then what you will get might look like a bunch of coordinates and dimensions, in which case a smaller object would actually be easier to describe, and having copies elsewhere would be irrelevant.
Still depends on how you do the identification. If you have to describe not just the location of the computer but the collection of fundamental entities that form it, then the more fundamental entities form it, the harder it (may) be to describe it.
Also, we aren’t talking about a universe tiled with computers; we are talking about a single 2kg computer or two 1kg computers. We leave it unspecified what the rest of the world looks like. EDIT: Rather, what I should say is: I’m not so sure it generalizes.
I don’t see why this is. Doesn’t it all depend on what language you use, and what the fundamental laws of physics are?
Sorry, what I meant was: if you’re comparing an otherwise identical scenario with two 1kg computers or one 2kg computer (and they’re physically the same, just sliced in half or not), you need an extra bit to individually identify one of the two 1kg computers that you don’t need to include when it’s a single 2kg computer. You’re right that in a general scenario the difference is probably not exactly 1 bit—which actually aligns more closely with my intuitions than the idea that a 2kg computer is always “twice as real” as a 1kg one.
I think it depends on how you do the identification, right? If your identification is simply “Find the simplest set of directions that takes the universe as input and outputs the computer,” then what you will get might look like a bunch of coordinates and dimensions, in which case a smaller object would actually be easier to describe, and having copies elsewhere would be irrelevant.
If you imagine a universe tiled with computers, it’s easier to identify any individual one the bigger the computers are, right?
I think this generalizes to more usual universes, but I could be wrong.
Still depends on how you do the identification. If you have to describe not just the location of the computer but the collection of fundamental entities that form it, then the more fundamental entities form it, the harder it (may) be to describe it.
Also, we aren’t talking about a universe tiled with computers; we are talking about a single 2kg computer or two 1kg computers. We leave it unspecified what the rest of the world looks like. EDIT: Rather, what I should say is: I’m not so sure it generalizes.