Le 09-août-06, à 01:49, Colin Hales a écrit :
> Why is everyone talking about abstract computation? Of _course_ 1st
> is prime = Has primacy in description of the universe. Being a portion
> any structure (ME) trying to model the structure (the UNIVERSE) from
> it (ME as scientist inside/part of the universe) is intrinsically and
> innately presented with that which is _not_ the structure of ME (NOT
> This applies at all scales (eg ME = an atom, ME = a galaxy).
> An _abstract_ computation/model X implemented symbolically on a of a
> of the structure (a COMPUTER) inside the structure (the UNIVERSE) will
> 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,
> that of 'being' a quantity N.
> The only computation going on around us is literally the universe. WE
> 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
> get a lot. :-)
> Colin hales
Of course I have a problem with the word "universe" and especially with
the expression "being inside a universe". The reason is that I think
comp forces us to accept we are supported by an infinity of
computations and that the 1-(plural and singular) appearance of the
universe emerges from that. cf UDA.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at