On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of
> prime numbers. That's human not Reality math.
Really? Discovery channel would disagree with you ;-)
> The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime
> number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not.
> The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of
> the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in
> particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a
> relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid
> particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such
> as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is
> granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals.
> Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says
> anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single
> example. Can you?
> All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on
> their competence....
> You state "Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor
> is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this." This doesn't compute
> for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why.... It seems to me
> that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product
> of computations in mind.
> Finally you state "But to define computation, you need to be realist on
> some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical
> assertions, that we can prove to exist."
> Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the
> computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply
> that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still
> runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it
> can't run.
? Perhaps you may choose to have a closer look at UDA and Bruno's other
work, as you seem to sometimes be leaning towards it. It can take awhile to
wrap ones head around First Person Indeterminacy and its implications,
given comp hypothesis.
A better understanding of it would, even if you disagree, avoid unfruitful
discussions with "Reality is such and such" claims, as his work doesn't
make those claims, nor seeks to support or negate that type of claim.
To put it roughly from my perspective, Bruno's work concerns examining
consequences of mechanist hypothesis against the backdrop of the discovery
of universal machines and is not philosophical in the sense of defending
some interpretation of "Reality" over others. True, he will argue that this
or that ontology is not compatible with comp, but to mix this up with
Philosophy as in defending an ontological stance, is to judge too quickly,
even though understandable. PGC
> *Eppur si muove!*
> On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include
>> theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that
>> reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most
>> certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic
>> definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world)
>> are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the
>> physical world).
>> While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it
>> fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is
>> computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that
>> same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table
>> with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about
>> reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is
>> electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both
>> computations in the brain.
>> The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and
>> therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally
>> evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however
>> its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms
>> actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds
>> interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that
>> distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and
>> experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally
>> evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds.
>> Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes
>> everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories.
>> But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists
>> independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact
>> prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all,
>> but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum.
>> This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it
>> real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I
>> call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of
>> reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and
>> everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists
>> exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in
>> the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and
>> Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that
>> exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it.
>> There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there
>> is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality.
>> There is only the different categories of reality of different information
>> forms within reality.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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.
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 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.