Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 10 January 2014 17:19, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> >> 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 [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.
