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:
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?
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at