On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:44 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote:
Terren,
There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual
reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Edgar,
How do you know reality is really as small and limited as you think it
is? Some fish in a pond might think their pond constitutes all of
reality. So what assumptions led you to the idea that the universe is
finite and that what we see is the only possible physics?
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.
So you accept that the physical world can be an illusion, but somehow
you know deep down that the flow of time, the collapse of the wave,
and the unicity of the physical laws are not illusions. I am
intererested to know how you came to decide what was illusory and what
is reality.
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.
Can your reasoning deduce that only one (and not all possible
computations) are being performed by this ontological energy? That is
a step I am not seeing any justification for.
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'.
I agree with this for some sense of the word reality. But I also would
say there is something external to our experiences that explains their
existence.
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.
Read Nick Bostrom's simulation argument. It is not proven, but it is
not disproven either.
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...
How do we distinguish science fiction from science reality if we are
trapped in the reality our mind creates for us? I would say the best
we can do is firm models and see how they compare to experience. You
have told us your conclusions, but not given us the model that led you
to them. I think I speak for many on the list when I say this is what
we are curious to see, since otherwise we have no idea how you got to
the conclusions you have arrived upon.
Jason
Edgar
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 <[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.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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 [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.
--
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.
--
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.
