There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual reality 
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.

Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental simulation 
of its external reality environment. This whole system, external world 
simulated by the minds of multiple biological observers, actually consists 
only of computational information flows in the presence and logical space 
of reality. Everything, including ourselves, is analogous to running, 
interacting software programs.

The apparent physicality of reality in the minds of biological organisms is 
an evolutionary adaptation to make reality seem more meaningful and easier 
to function within. This physicality is not real, it's an internal mental 
illusion. I devote the entire Part IV of my book dissecting this illusion 
and explaining how it works.

The book also explains in detail how once we identify and subtract 
everything mind adds to reality we arrive at what reality actually is, pure 
information computationally evolving in the logical space of reality I call 
ontological energy. When we peel back all the various layers of physicality 
that mind adds to external reality its remaining purely abstract 
information structure is clearly revealed.

We all live in a world that is actually almost entirely a construct of our 
mental simulations of an external information reality. Thus when we look 
out into the world we are mostly looking into the structures of our own 
minds. We live inside our minds under what I call the 'retinal sky'.

Just as robots function within environments they simulate internally with 
computations, so do all biological organisms including ourselves. We do no 
'see' the real actual world, we compute internal models of it and live 
within those.

It is only these internal biological simulations that there is any evidence 
for. There is no evidence of any 'matrix' type simulations. That's just 
adolescent sci fi unless there is some actual evidence. Again I went 
through that sci fi phase back in the 1960's in a short story i wrote on 
the same theme titled "The Livies". Let's stick to evidence based reality 
rather than sci fi...


On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:05:29 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
> Edgar,
> That begs the question. You start by assuming reality is computed, and 
> then conclude that because reality exists, reality must be computed.
> Again I will point out that except for one key difference, your ideas and 
> Bruno's are actually pretty similar. The difference of course being that 
> the UDA entails that there are an infinity of computed realities. 
> Let me approach this from a different direction. Given that you agree that 
> you could be digitally replaced and not notice the difference, this also 
> entails that you could be placed into a simulation, where your simulated 
> brain is functionally identical to your real brain or the prosthetic brain 
> that could replace it with you noticing. So a simulation of you embedded in 
> a simulated world is also conscious - this is more or less what your theory 
> of consciousness says. The next step is to see that there are an infinity 
> of possible simulations that contain your current brain state, and thus 
> your consciousness, in this moment (or any given moment). 
> If you're still with me we can go back to the UDA, which in so many words 
> says that all of these infinite simulations exist in Platonia, traced by 
> the Universal Dovetailer (a rather simple program) - and your moment by 
> moment reality is a view from the inside of the infinity of simulations 
> that contain you. Indeed, physics and the physical world in general 
> represent a stable measure on the kinds of worlds that could support your 
> consciousness. But because the infinity of simulations is necessarily what 
> renders the physical world, it is not computable. That is the contradiction 
> entailed by a computational universe such as you elaborate in your theory.
> Your objection about human math and reality math, I believe, is an attempt 
> to refute step 8 of the UDA - that is usually the most problematic step for 
> people who don't agree with the UDA. It would be very interesting if you 
> could identify a flaw in the UDA, supported by arguments rather than simple 
> assertion, as you have done to this point.
> Terren
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > 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.
>> Edgar
>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> Liz,
>>>> No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of 
>>>> occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What more 
>>>> convincing proof could there be?
>>> One that explains why that has to be so would be a good start.
>>>>  If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure nonsense 
>>>> that is conclusively falsified by the very existence of reality.
>>>> The point is that certain assumptions lead to certain conclusions. If 
>>> the conclusions invalidate the assumptions, then the correct response is to 
>>> throw out the original assumptions as invalid. Bruno starts from the 
>>> assumption that consciousness is a form of computation and draws certain 
>>> inferences. This isn't what comp "claims" it's what the argument shows, 
>>> given the assumptions. The only way to falsify it is to show that one of 
>>> the assumptions is wrong, or that there is a flaw in the reasoning that 
>>> leads to the conclusions.
>>>  -- 
>> 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 <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.

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