On 11/7/2012 8:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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. CraigHi 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 Booleanalgebra in and of itself to present itself as a Stone dual? Why haveany new ontological presentation of equivalence at all from a purearithmetic motive?Craig

Hi Craig,

`Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very`

`limited window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit of an`

`infinite number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no counter`

`example in a world that is Boolean Representable, thus it is universally`

`true. This does not imply that all mathematical truths are so simple to`

`prove via a method of plurality of agreement. Motl wrote something on`

`this today:`

`http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/when-truths-dont-commute-inconsistent.htm`

"When truths don't commute. Inconsistent histories.

`When the uncertainty principle is being presented, people usually -- if`

`not always -- talk about the position and the momentum or analogous`

`dimensionful quantities. That leads most people to either ignore the`

`principle completely or think that it describes just some technicality`

`about the accuracy of apparatuses.`

`However, most people don't change their idea what the information is and`

`how it behaves. They believe that there exists some sharp objective`

`information, after all. Nevertheless, these ideas are incompatible with`

`the uncertainty principle. Let me explain why the uncertainty principle`

`applies to the truth, too."`

Please read the read at his website -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.