Hi Edgar,

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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.
>

Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your own mental
simulation of it, it's not clear how you can be so sure about what "actual
reality" is. I understand you have a theory, but that's all any of us have.
We can rule theories out when contradicted by evidence, but you haven't
provided that, unless you count various hand-waving statements.


> 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.
>

I agree with that. However in the logical, computational space you anchor
your theory in (something referred to on this list sometimes as Platonia),
there are an infinity of such "logical realities" that go through your
current computational state. From your first-person perspective you cannot
predict which of the infinite continuations you will inhabit in the next
moment.


> 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.
>

Yes, I agree, and this is an important insight.


> 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.
>

Personally, I think your theory fails because it insists on a single,
fundamental computational universe, running in "P-time", for which there is
no evidence or theoretical justification (none that you have provided,
anyway). I know you point relentlessly to our everyday experience of
present-moments, but using introspection as evidence is problematic
precisely because as you have pointed out, our subjective reality is based
on an illusion constructed in the mind.

Going from Ontological Energy to Platonia is the same move as going from
P-Time to Block Time.


> 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'.
>

Retinal sky is a good term. Imagine how many different kinds of programs
could compute the same retinal sky for any given moment.


> 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.
>

Right, and this is why it is so unclear as to how you can be so certain
about what constitutes the "real actual world". Do you have access to some
kind of oracle?


> It is only these internal biological simulations that there is any
> evidence for.
>

Again, if you could only turn such statements inward on your own theories,
I think it would be much easier for your ideas to gain traction.


> 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...
>

By your own admission above there is no evidence for the "real, actual
reality" you've articulated either. It all looks like sci-fi to the naive
realist. If we dismissed theories on the basis of weirdness, we would have
tossed QM out the window a century ago.

Terren


> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
>

-- 
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