Colin Hales wrote:

Of _course_ 1st person
> is prime = Has primacy in description of the universe. Being a portion of
> any structure (ME) trying to model the structure (the UNIVERSE) from within
> it (ME as scientist inside/part of the universe) is intrinsically and
> innately presented with that which is _not_ the structure of ME (NOT ME).
> This applies at all scales (eg ME = an atom, ME = a galaxy).

> The only computation going on around us is literally the universe. WE are
> computations within it. We can only ever acquire data about it from the
> perspective of being in it.

Very well put IMO. We could discuss the details of the computational
schema (or Bruno could anyway), but broadly, yes.

> An _abstract_ computation/model X implemented symbolically on a of a portion
> of the structure (a COMPUTER) inside the structure (the UNIVERSE) will see
> the universe as "NOT COMPUTER", not some function of the machinations of X,
> the model. Eg The first person perspective of a register in a computer
> holding a quantity N must be that of being a register in a computer, not
> that of 'being' a quantity N.

Interestingly you see it as the perspective of the register, rather
than some computational entity within X. Does this imply some sort of
hardware/ substrate experiential dependency, rather than a purely
relational 'program-level' view?

>
> Maybe you're not talking about the same universe as me. We're trying to get
> to grips with our universe, yes? I don't get it. Then again I seem not to
> get a lot. :-)

You get it pretty well IMO.

David

>
> Maybe you're not talking about the same universe as me. We're trying to get
> to grips with our universe, yes? I don't get it. Then again I seem not to
> get a lot. :-)
> Why is everyone talking about abstract computation? Of _course_ 1st person
> is prime = Has primacy in description of the universe. Being a portion of
> any structure (ME) trying to model the structure (the UNIVERSE) from within
> it (ME as scientist inside/part of the universe) is intrinsically and
> innately presented with that which is _not_ the structure of ME (NOT ME).
> This applies at all scales (eg ME = an atom, ME = a galaxy).
>
> An _abstract_ computation/model X implemented symbolically on a of a portion
> of the structure (a COMPUTER) inside the structure (the UNIVERSE) will see
> the universe as "NOT COMPUTER", not some function of the machinations of X,
> the model. Eg The first person perspective of a register in a computer
> holding a quantity N must be that of being a register in a computer, not
> that of 'being' a quantity N.
>
> The only computation going on around us is literally the universe. WE are
> computations within it. We can only ever acquire data about it from the
> perspective of being in it.
>
> Maybe you're not talking about the same universe as me. We're trying to get
> to grips with our universe, yes? I don't get it. Then again I seem not to
> get a lot. :-)
> 
> Colin hales


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to