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 


> 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 
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