On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Jason, and Bruno,
>
> I went through Bruno's paper which is interesting but speculative and
> based, as he admits, on a number of unestablished assumptions.
>

Namely computationalism: the idea that the brain is a machine.  This is the
working theory of practically all scientists, and seems to be an assumption
of the theory you propose as well. This is the only assumption you need for
the first 7 steps.


>
> Again the basic problem I see is that this is all a theory constructed of
> human math with no reason to believe any of it applies to the actual real
> math that computes reality.
>

If you believe reality is a computation, you are necessarily assuming the
same "computationalism", that Bruno's UDA uses.


>
> Reality continues to merrily compute the current state of the universe
> with no problems whatsoever in spite of all human mathematicians' theories.
>
> Can anyone give me any empirical evidence at all that any of Bruno's
> theory actually applies to any of the computational structure of reality?
>

It is a proof.  If you assume computationalism, then the rest of Bruno's
theory follows as a logical consequence. The proof is constructive and
broken into steps.  If you disagree with any particular step in the
reasoning, please let us know the number of the step so we can proceed.


> I don't mean whether its a valid mathematical theory or not. I mean look
> and examine what reality is actually doing and tell me if it's actually
> doing what Bruno postulates it is. That after all is the only scientific
> test....
>
>
It is a very difficult computational problem, but so far the results look
promising, and it has passed a few tests without being refuted. For
example, if there was no such thing as quantum mechanics, and its various
strange effects, it would have refuted computationalism.

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