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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
