Stephen,

I have some familiarity with Wolframs CA, I played with them myself many 
years ago, but don't find much that applies to the present discussion, or 
that sheds much light on reality IMHO...

Edgar


On Thursday, January 9, 2014 12:53:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>   Check out this article by S. Wolfram:
>
>
> http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/academic/undecidability-intractability-theoretical-physics.pdf
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little above in which I answer 
>> most of your questions on the nature of experience.
>>
>> You will see in that post I note that the computational information 
>> universe can be considered to consist of what I call 'Xperience' only (see 
>> that post for an explanation). If that is true then every information form 
>> in the universe can be considered a 'generic observer' that observes other 
>> information forms by computationally interacting with them. 
>>
>> So in that sense I agree that since everything in the universe is 
>> effectively a generic observer that the universe itself consists entirely 
>> of observations and thus could not exist without some generic observers 
>> (since generic observers is all that exists in the universe in this view). 
>> In other words if ANYthing does exist, it must be a generic observer, thus 
>> the universe doesn't exist without it being observed in that sense. So in 
>> that sense I think we might agree.
>>
>> With regards your last point. The computational information system of the 
>> universe is not dependent on human mathematical concepts since every state 
>> is immediately computed from its prior state by what we call the laws of 
>> nature, which are the ACTUAL math of reality by which it actively computes 
>> itself. Thus the actual math of reality is entirely logically 
>> self-consistent and logically complete. 
>>
>> However it is true that individual organismic mental simulations can be 
>> inconsistent locally if they include false or self-contradictory premises. 
>> This includes most of human math, which is based on generalized 
>> approximations of actual reality math, and those generalizations introduce 
>> the well known problems addressed by Godel, Bruno etc. which DO NOT apply 
>> to the actual logico-mathematical system of reality.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:04:39 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Edgar,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@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/to
>>>>>> pic/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-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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> 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 <javascript:>
>
>  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