User blog comment:Winrobee/A Hierarchy of Largest Number Principles/@comment-29832930-20191106032335

1 Though using a universe to define a number is morally questionable, the thought experiment in part 1 is intended to use a definite manner of notation to produce a physically existing expression, though that would probably not exist all in the same time. Not necessarily in reams of paper, but in something that was like the thoughts of googological numbers of minds experiencing the right virtual worlds. Eventually, in distance in space and time, the supermind that held them would by limited by entropy hazing out communication from here to there, and the supposition is that there is a maximum amount of spacetime, and thus information, that can be involved in a well-defined act of calculation.

2 Though that might not be obvious off the bat, the reason that the computerscape (which is even more dubious from a moral responsibility stand point) would be better than one well-defined mind, in my opinion, is that the final results don't have to be interpretable from one brain, or one detectable area of the multiverse. The many brains perform what they find is their mission, and the interpretation of the results can be left to hypotheticallities in which a physically implausible computer would have to intetpret/check the results. Imagine a cellular automata like Life in which the state of every cell had the maximum amount of physical complexity, then imagine the longest run of the game where the colony must reach a stable or meta-stable state.