On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:50:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 11/7/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> On 11/7/2012 7:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> > Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp >> universe? >> > -- >> Hi Craig, >> >> So far it seems that there is only a singular set of countable >> recursive functions (or equivalent) and thus a single Boolean algebra >> for the Universal Machine. If the BA (of the Universal number or >> Machine) has an infinite number of propositions, how could it be divided >> up into finite Boolean subalgebras BA_i, where each of them has a >> mutually consistent set of propositions? >> Additionally, how is 'time' defined by comp such that >> transformations of topologies can be considered. >> >> > It occurs to me that computation can only occur where topological position > is borrowed from the physical, spacetime presence of persistent bodies. > Sense and static realism must exist a priori to computation. > > Craig > > Hi Craig, > > Yes, the set of equivalent computations (equivalent in the sense of > all are capable of generating the 1p content) can only occur if there is a > topological position. This position is "borrowed" from the space-time that > a set of persistent logics have in common. Remember, one Boolean algebra > has many different but equivalent Stone spaces as its dual and each Stone > space has as it dual many equivalent Boolean algebras. I am using the > concept of an equivalence class. A space-time is a Stone space that has > some evolution, so it is a sequence of Stone spaces. A computation is the > evolution of a Boolean algebra or, equivalently, a sequence of Boolean > algebras. S3nse is the 1p content/static realism of every Boolean > algebra/Stone space pair - like a snapshot of an experience. > What must be understood is that there is an (at least) uncountable > infinity of these dual pairs and only a finite number of them can have a > Boolean algebra (equivalence class) between then, so this gives the > illusion of a finite universe of physical stuff for almost any finite > subset of dual pairs. > > -- > > As far as falsifying comp though, is there any reason for Boolean algebra in and of itself to present itself as a Stone dual? Why have any new ontological presentation of equivalence at all from a pure arithmetic motive?

Craig > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/57LK3y2BiZIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.