On 3/18/2012 11:49 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    Dear Joseph,

        Could you elaborate exactly where this is covered in the COMP
    hypothesis such that it (continuity) is not something that is
    eliminated in UDA 8?

What do you mean by continuity here -- continuity of observer moments?
Dear Joseph,

Yes, the continuity of observer moments. What defines the order of an arbitrary string of OMs? What topology do these strings have? What about situations where we have many strings of observer moments that connect laterally with other strings? You are, after all, going to model multiple observer and interactions, no? Bruno has repeatedly discussed how COMP reduces physics to a computational many bodies problem. How do you propose to solve this problem? I have a proposal in mind. ;-) But it only works in a non-Platonic setting.

If we admit a digital substitution, it follows that the "data" for our generalized brains can be copied and pasted at will. In fact, the latter is just a restatement of the former.

Iff a digital substitution is in principle even possible! Cutting and pasting at will requires the existence of a structure to be acted upon and an action to carry out the cutting and pasting. What defines the set or category or topos of the "data"? Did you know that surgery - which is what cutting and pasting is - violates a basic principle in topology, the invariance of genus of a continuous manifold? Sure, we can define computations in terms of functions in surgical quotient spaces, but where do we get the spaces or the functions to perform these actions? What is it mereology (whole-part relation of the manifold)? What axioms does the data obey? What are its organizational principles? You seem to just assume that such are already defined by some fiat! What will not do, for you are just avoiding Leibniz' question: "Why this and not some other?" This is cheating since we have learned that one thing that Nature is not is biased about any framing, basis or mereology. Why Integers and not a large but finite field? Why not the P-adics? Why not the surreals? Why not some form of non-standard numbers? Each of these sets have different properties and computational features, we should never be so anthropocentric to think that "Man is the measure of all things!", which is exactly what we are claiming when we say that "... our generalized brains ..." are this and that, such as what is implied by "...the latter is just a restatement of the former." The point is that we first need to dig a bit deeper and establish by natural mathematical means that 1) digital substitution is a sound mathematical concept and 2) that it is possible. Surprisingly it can be easily argued that the latter is just a restatement of the former. But is this done in the discussion of COMP so far? I haven't seen it. So I ask again: Why are we putting our selves through such convoluted abstractions to talk about the simple idea of moving though space-time? COMP is just a formal model of the a form of the relationships between numbers and the content of observer moments, but it assumes that some particular set of numbers are ontological primitives and some idealization of actions that we only know to occur when we run actual calculations on our computers of work out in long form stuff on chalkboards of by the actions of the neurons in our brains.

At least try to understand my point here. I am trying to explain that there are things that numbers alone cannot do, they cannot count themselves. They cannot perform any form of activity, they are purely and perpetually static and fixed. Therefore any talk that involves any kind of activity or change is nonsense in COMP. Everything is assumed to occur simultaneously as if the speed of light where infinite, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to information processing and there is no such thing as a space or time. If we are going to invoke concepts of continuity and differential mapping into continuities then we had better know what we are talking about! Which infinity are you assuming? Are you assuming the continuum hypothesis of Cantor to be true of false? So many unanswered questions just being glossed over COMP is an idealism, a beautiful fiction. But is it what we actually experience as Reality? No, it is at best some special representative power-set. But which one, as there are unnameably many. I am just trying to point out that there are some problems with the way that COMP is being interpreted and not arguing that COMP is false or wrong. That's all.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to