On 10 January 2014 16:16, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Liz, > > So? I'm not really interested in Bruno's comp as I don't think it actually > applies to reality. I'll stick with my computational reality for the time > being at least... > > So, obviously, any logical argument that shows that computational reality is self-contradictory will make your theory invalid. I'm not saying that is the case, just that you should be aware of the possible ways in which your theory may be refutable, and what, if any, counter arguments can be mustered to support it..
> Edgar > > > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> Well, that's OK then. >> >> Now we've cleared that up, I can repeat my original point: >> >> On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Liz, >>> >>> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it >>> doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume a >>> computational universe in the first place you have to assume (you are >>> assuming) that it computes reality. The fact that reality exists is >>> conclusive proof. >>> >>> That doesn't work for [Bruno's] comp, however, which doesn't assume a >> computational universe. The assumptions it makes are a lot simpler than >> that. I believe they are >> >> The Church-Turing thesis >> Elementary arithmetic >> That consciousness is a form of computation >> >> -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
