No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically 
complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) 
because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause 
at the incompletenesses and could not exist. Thus since it does exist it 
must be logically consistent and logically complete.

True that only direct experience is certain on the most fundamental level, 
but it is also clear upon consistent examination that direct experience is 
never as it seems to be in the sense that there is clearly a deeper reality 
that is obscured by direct experience. If we accept that reality is 
logical, which it must be to exist, then all else follows and we can 
continue to discuss. Otherwise all would be meaningless and futile which it 
clearly and self-evidently is not, since if reality was not logical we 
could not function within it which we do to varying degrees of competence. 
Therefore our direct experience tells us that reality is a consistent 
logical structure.

We can simply define what reality is = everything that exists. We don't 
have to "search" for reality since it is everywhere and cannot be escaped. 
What we search for is not reality, but its structural details.

Lastly no, I do not believe in any "primitive physical reality". Not at 
all. At its fundamental level reality is information running in ontological 
energy which is not anything physical, it's simply my name for the 
actuality and presence of existence which is information and realness in 
the present moment rather than anything physical. It is the actuality and 
presence of reality which manifests as a present moment in which 
everything, including ourselves, exists. It is the locus of reality which 
conveys actual reality upon the computationally evolving information forms 
within it. Because of its non-physical nature OE is difficult to properly 
describe as Lao Tse noted about the Tao which was his take on OE.


On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> All,
> The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving 
> some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise 
> everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere.
> If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that 
> is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute 
> certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments 
> vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of 
> science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth.
> But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all 
> atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, 
> should have been discarded millennia ago....
> Edgar

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to