On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Stephen, > > Thanks for the welcome to the group. It's certainly far superior to most > and the members should be commended! > > :-) > To address your questions. No, the computations of the universe exist > don't run in a physical reality. Physical reality emerges from these > computations as they are interpreted in human, and other organism's, mental > models of reality. > I would agree! There is not any "separate" hardware that the computations could be said to "run on" in any absolute sense; that is the point that I was asking about! The "reality" emerges from the computations, yes. But there is something interesting here that can be learned from the concept of a "virtual machine" that is used in real world computers . A virtual machine is a program that acts as if it where hardware for some other program. So we have the idea that computations can see each other as hardware and thus the notion that "the computations of the universe do run on a physical reality" if and only if we restrict the notion of "computations of the universe" into subsets that can not be merged or cleanly dovetailed into each other. > > Light cones are important but emerge FROM computational reality as > dimensionalization emerges from quantum events. (See my post on the quantum > aspects of my work in a separate topic of that title). > Ah, that will not work if your concept of computation generates the causal relations between observed events. As I pointed out previously, the universe we observe is not one that can be said to have a causal ordering that all observers (regardless of their frames of reference) can agree upon. This may seem to be a crazy and even obviously wrong statement to make, but think about it. Any time we think of events in the physical world and their ordering (in time) we have to consider the inertial frame of the observers and we notice that there will always be observers (with different inertial frames) that cannot agree on the order of events. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Therefore, when considering the usual notion of the computation of the universe, we can not assume a single computation as such is equivalent to a single sequence of computational events or a string of numbers. There is a different view of computation that does not involve strings of numbers of sequences of events that I am investigating. See: http://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/glc-actors-what-are-for-and-why-are-interesting/ > > Light cones are how we visually see and confirm the 4-dimensional > hyperspherical geometry of our universe. We actually see all 4-dimensions > all the time as we look down our light cones. Our 4-dimensional universe > lies clear before us. No tricks needed! > Umm, we disagree! > > Therefore your gravity=acceleration argument (which is of course true) > doesn't apply. There is a single self-consistent universal computational > system at the information level. Different relativistic views of this > reality, with different light cones, are just different ways different > observers view and interpret the dimensional aspects of this single > universal computational reality in their respective frames as they emerge > from quantum events. > Your idea might work if you ignore the fact that quantum mechanics does not allow all events to be uniquely ordered in a global way. Information of positions is generally incompatible with information of momenta. If you are only considering position information, cool. One can obtain a single 4-d universe that is computable by a single computation. But that is a static universe and we don't live in it. Our universe evolves. Objects in it have measurable momenta, spin, charge and positions. Computations of it cannot be said to be uniquely defined into a single string. The same argument holds for the reverse: The universe as a computation is *many* distinct computations, not just one. > > Best, > Edgar > > On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> All, >> >> 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 > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “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 immediately.” -- 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.