Welcome to the group! It is always wonderful to have new perspectives
and ideas added to the discussion. I have a question. When we talk about
how "reality is clearly a computational process, and it runs against pure
information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe", is that
computation one that is equivalent to a single light-like foliation of the
physical universe or are you summing over all possible foliations? (A
light-like foliation is the surface of a light-cone and thus there is a
clear chain of causal events.)
It seems to me that it is a mistake to assume that there is a single
Turing Machine equivalent computation involved in our universe as it can be
easily proven that gravity and accelerations (the "same thing" via the
principle of equivalence) prevent the possibility of a single light-like
foliation that captures all events in our universe. Therefore if we are to
consider a computational notion of reality, it cannot be singular. It has
to be many computations: one for each possible foliation.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from
> the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to
> impose on reality. My approach is to closely examine reality and then try
> to figure out how it works and what ITS innate rules and structures are.
> I would probably agree with much of what you say, if you were saying it
> about human logico-mathematical structures, but the logico-mathematical
> structure of reality is not bound by human rules. It runs according to its
> own logic and science is the process of trying to figure out what those
> rules are and how they work...
> For example, reality is clearly a computational process, and it runs
> against pure information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe.
> There is simply no other way current information states of reality could
> result from previous ones other than by a computational process. How that
> computational process works must be determined by examining reality itself.
> We may try to make sense of it in terms of traditional human math theory,
> but when there are differences then reality always trumps human math
> theory, which applies to human math rather than reality's
> logico-mathematical system.
> On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book
>> on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
>> Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers
>> (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that
>> continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software
>> includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In
>> fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a
>> logical structure just as is the case in computational reality.
>> Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is
>> mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of
>> reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the
>> mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with
>> its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had
>> nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the
>> present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I
>> present a computational based information approach to these in my book
>> among many other things.
>> The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's
>> work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and
>> logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and
>> extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual
>> logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities
>> and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality).
>> I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it
>> in my book...
>> Edgar Owen
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.