> And I honestly cannot see ANY useful resemblance between
> computational objects and real physical objects.
>
> Computational objects do not have mass;

Of course they can:

Transcript show: myMassiveObject mass.

> do not occupy space;

Larger than we could possibly imagine (or smaller):

Transcript show: myHugeObject volume.

> do not emit or absorb photons (so don't have colour);

Any in the rainbow, or in any spectrum::

Transcript show: myColourfulObject color.
or
myColourfulObject emitPhoton.

> it
> makes no sense to ask about the velocity of sound through a
> Workspace or the tension in a String.

workSpace speedOfSound.
myNervousString tension.

> Even in Morphic, which gives a pretty good illusion of
> reality, if you "drop" a morph, it doesn't fall.

It can do better than fall, it can simulate all sorts of potential behaviors
that would be "real" in any of a huge number of potential universes,
including the one we're most familiar with.

> The
> "shadows" we see on the screen are totally unaffected by the
> location of light sources in the room.

In which room? Within it's workspace "room", no problem at all--standard 3D
shading algorithm. And given proper inputs to your computer, it would be
entirely capable to be directly affected by the light in your "real" life
room.

It's all about simulation. There's no easier way to change Planck's
constant, the speed of light, or the harmonic resonance frequency of the
hydrogen atom.

-joel