Edgar,

## Advertising

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Jason, > > To answer your questions. > > Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an unreachable > non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is clearly understood it is > obvious that nothing actual can be infinite. There is no getting around > this. Nothing real can be infinite.... > > This, combined with your insistence on a fundamental time, represents a contradiction, since if existence has always existed then time is infinite. Since time is actual in your theory... Terren > Reality was never created. Non-existence cannot exist, therefore existence > (something) has always existed. This is the fundamental self-necessitating > axiom of reality upon which all others stand. It is the ultimate bottom > turtle (along with the axiom that the universe is logical). Therefore there > is no necessity of a creator nor a creation event. > > The big bang was an ACTUALIZATION event, not a creation event, out of a > generalized quantum vacuum (my ontological energy) which was originally > formless but contained all the possibilities able to be actualized. With > the big bang forms became real and actual and the universe was born and the > computational universe began computing its ongoing evolution.... > > Edgar > > > > > > On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:23:39 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> Liz, >> >> I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the >> computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be small >> and finite. >> >> The moment you let the universe be very big (eternal inflation) then you >> also get an infinite number of computers built by aliens in distant >> galaxies, any of which might be simulating you, and the same consequences >> Bruno points out apply. >> >> My question to Edgar is why do you believe reality is finite? This seems >> to contradict a number of current scientific theories. >> >> Also, when do you believe reality was created? And how do you explain >> it's origins? >> >> Jason >> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:35 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 10 January 2014 17:19, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On 1/9/2014 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational space >>> that enables computations to take place since something has to move for >>> computations to occur. All it DOES is provide the processor cycle for >>> computations. >>> >>> You seem to be nit picking... >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:56:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>> >>>> No you spent them telling me what it *does*. I'd like to know what it >>>> *is.* >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10 January 2014 15:54, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Common Liz, I just spent the last number of posts telling you and >>>>> Stephen what it is... Don't make me repeat myself... >>>>> >>>> >>> I don't know why there is this concern about Edgar's computations. It's >>> seems very much like Bruno's, except Bruno's Universal computer is running >>> all possible programs (by dovetailing). The time that appears on clocks is >>> a computed ordering relation which is conjugate to the conserved quantity >>> called "energy". >>> >>> Bruno's dovetailer is supposedly running (if that's the word) in an >> abstract space, while Edgar's processor units are, as far as one can tell, >> intended to be in some sense physical. It's clear what Bruno's ontology is >> based on, he makes it explicit in his axioms. It isn't clear what Edgar's >> ontology is based on - he seems to be assuming that time and some form of >> computation are fundamental properties of the universe, but not what those >> computers are running on (by Turing equivalence, I assume they COULD be >> running on a desktop PC in some other universe) or what his "universal >> present moment" consists of - is it a linear dimensio, say? But then it >> appears to be quantised, since it only supports discrete computational >> steps. Can time be quantised? What are the implications? Do things like the >> Landauer limit come into his theory? >> >> The concern is, I suspect, due to... >> >> a) a lack of rigour, either logical or mathematical, in describing the >> theory >> b) a lack of testable results, or indications of how one gets from the >> theory to the observed reality >> c) a bad attitude >> >> >> -- >> 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> >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >> 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. > -- 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.