On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Give me a link to the UDA and I'll gladly take a look.
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

It is not long, and explained in this paper such that even non-experts can
follow it.  Moreover, it is a logical argument divided into numbered steps,
such that if you run into a difficulty at any particular step, you can say
which one it is and we can go from there.


>
> The computational system of reality runs in the logical space of reality,
> that's why its computations produce real and actual results in the
> universe. I call that logical space of reality ontological energy (OE) and
> see my other posts for a more detailed explanation.
>
> To explore reality math we have to examine what elemental computations
> actually run to produce the universe. They may be pretty simple. E.g. the
> conservation of particle properties in particle interactions is one such,
> as that comp just reallocates the particle properties from one set of valid
> particle associations to another. The big question is, are all the events
> in the universe at all scales just emergent results of such elemental
> computations or are there higher level computations that exist
> independently.
>
> In any case we have to look at what is the minimum set of comps necessary
> to compute the entire universe. That will show us what reality math really
> is. The assumption that all of human math somehow exists in some invisible
> Platonic world in some totally unobservable state is not falsifiable and
> thus is not science.
>

It is falsifiable if it predicts that our own laws of physics are highly
unlikely.  People often throw around "not falsifiable" prematurely in a
theory's evaluation. Critics of Darwin said evolution was not falsifiable
because it operated on time scales too long for anyone to observe.


>
> The notion that all of human math, just because it may be consistent with
> reality math, actually has anything to do with the logical structure and
> computations of reality is completely unwarranted.
>

Actually, so far it seems to explain a lot. Non-clonability of matter,
appearances of non-locality, appearances of randomness and unpredictability
below the level of our substrate, the physical laws conforming to
information laws, linearity, and others.  Many of the mysteries of quantum
mechanics could be explained as a consequence of the existence of all
computations.


> We have to see what reality's comps actually are, that's the proper
> approach.
>
>
Say we could discover what those computations are.  The next question would
be "Why these laws, and not others?" Would you have any justification that
these computations are the only ones?

If our consciousness is a computation, then if the same computation is
instantiated in a different universe, we can find ourselves there. So the
existence of these "other universes" or "other computations" is not
something without observable consequences. It implies we could experience
afterlives, for example.

Jason



>
> On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 3:35:02 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic
>> approach.
>>
>> Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already
>> exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the
>> alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical
>> structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that
>> mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered.
>> Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly
>> applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility.
>>
>> However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing
>> the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans
>> to apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality
>> is active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no
>> evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually
>> running and computing reality's current state.
>>
>> Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of
>> reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to
>> reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to
>>  applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look
>> at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US,
>> as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic
>> scientific method and is the correct approach.
>>
>> So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different.
>> Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure
>> that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely
>> generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing
>> in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math.
>>
>> For example all computations in reality math are finite with no
>> infinities nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental
>> level and nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a
>> generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as
>> there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and
>> greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there
>> may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to
>> compute only what actually exists.
>>
>> Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that
>> computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't
>> actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon
>> have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math.
>>
>> Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the
>> actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his
>> mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to
>> apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually
>> apply.
>>
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to