Dear Edgar,

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything
> that exists.
>

I denote "everything that exist" as 'the Total Universe' or simply
"Existence". The key is that such is independent of any contingency or
property. Some have argued that existence = necessary possibility, a
definition which I find most useful.




> One must be careful to distinguish between actual external reality, of
> which there is only one,
>

This implies that its uniqueness is separable or isolatable from
observers and can imply property definiteness independent of measurement.
This is contradicted by the general non-commutativity of observables in QM.
I try to be sure that my ontology does not contradict empirical facts. For
example, position properties and momentum properties of objects cannot be
considered as inherent in objects independent of measurement.

  I am attempting to explain how that uniqueness can to pass using
Wheeler's Surprise 20 Questions concept. It allows us a method by which
many a priori possible properties can be reduces to a single set that is
common to many observers; a nice alternative to the mere postulation of a
unique "actual external reality".



> and individual 'realities' which vary widely across individuals and
> species, and which are all individual mental simulations of the areas of
> the actual external reality that form their environments.
>

If there are multiple observers and they can communicate then it follows
that there must be commonalities in their individual observations. Why not
use that? Your alternative seems to be more of an 'act of faith' that our
experiences are not some hallucination or simulation. Descartes discusses
this in his Meditations and was not imaginative sufficiently to not appeal
to an external "Deity" for an explanation as to why what we experience is
not a hallucination or simulation.
  In my studies of philosophy I have often noticed that all the statements
apply only to a single entity; almost never is the consequence of
communicating and arriving on agreements between many entities considered.
Maybe people that tend toward philosophy also tend to be mentally alienated
from other persons... or autistic...



>
> Your definition of reality refers to similarities between individual
> simulated realities, not to the common external reality.
>


Yes, I don't like appeals to authority, explicit or implicit.

>
> Just because n observers all have the same reality simulation does not
> mean that is actually true of external reality, so your definition could
> just refer to agreement on an illusion, which is almost inevitable since
> almost all of the reality in which we believe we exist is actually a
> manufactured simulation in our own minds.
>

Consider that n goes to infinity and that p is the probability of that an
observer has experiences that can be matched up with those of another via
some diffeomorphism... The probability that the individual experience are
completely independent simulations becomes vanishingly small!



>
> The actual reality is pure computationally evolving information in the
> presence of the substrate (what I call ontological energy) of reality. On
> the other hands the simulated realities in organismic minds manifest to the
> organisms as classical material worlds which they are not, and these vary
> quite widely among species....
>

Do you consider the computational complexity involved? It has been
pointed out, for example by Stephen Wolfram, that faithfully simulating a
physical system (such that any number of observers having an experience of
"that systems" could agree that it is "the same system") is intractable (or
at least NP-Complete).

  Experience is not a "magical" process! Its content can be quantified and
related to measures of information and algorithmic complexity. Why don't
you look into such?



>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:26:16 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> Dear Brent,
>>
>>    I have given my definition of reality previously, but here it is
>> again. For some collection of observers that can communicate, a reality is
>> that which is incontrovertible. In other words, a reality is that which all
>> observers agree. I do not like the idea of an a priori "reality" as such
>> can be defined arbitrarily to suit one's whim.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:11 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/8/2014 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Brent,
>>>
>>>    I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is
>>> something "real" about the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of
>>> realism that does not involve a "god's eye view" by appealing to the
>>> possibility of coherent communication between multiple observers. Observers
>>> being defined as intersections of an infinite number of computations, ala
>>> Bruno's definition. We do not need an ontologically primitive physical
>>> world, we only need a "level of substitution" so that the "Yes, Doctor"
>>> choice is possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice that you had to put "real" in scare quotes - because it isn't
>>> clear what it means.  I think the conclusion is that, in Bruno's MGA, the
>>> inert program needs to include a great deal, essentially a whole universe.
>>> That doesn't make it wrong, but to me it makes it less interesting.  It
>>> would be surprising than an inert program could implement consciousness in
>>> this world, since it couldn't interact with this world.  But if it's
>>> conscious within it's own world, then it's just like any other simulation
>>> (e.g. The Matrix).
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>> > Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes
>>>> as "what data feels
>>>> > like when it's being processed" - hardly a detailed theory. He starts
>>>> his Mathematical
>>>> > Universe Hypothesis from the opposite pole to Bruno, so to speak. I
>>>> wonder if it's
>>>> > possible for a particular mathemathical object to drop out of comp -
>>>> after all, we do
>>>> > appear to live in a universe with a specific set of laws of physics.
>>>> Are these the only
>>>> > ones that could be generated by comp (or generated by the existence
>>>> of conscious beings
>>>> > in Platonia) ? Maybe one needs to somehow intersect comp with the MUH
>>>> to get the full story!
>>>>
>>>> I think to be conscious you need memory and a sense of time passage
>>>> (although Bruno
>>>> disputes this when he comes back from a salvia trip).  To escape
>>>> solipism there must be
>>>> objects your perceive, some of which act like you, and on which you can
>>>> act (c.f. Dr
>>>> Johnson). That implies that there must be a quasi-classical world in
>>>> order to support
>>>> consciousness (at least human-like consciousness).
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>  --
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> step...@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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/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 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.
>



-- 

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 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