On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
Good point! I tend to have a 5 bin system that I use to categorize
ontological theories: Material monism, Ideal monism, dualism, pluralism
and "other" (which would include the various "mysterianisms"). Isms are
useful for quick and dirty sorting, but can lead one into trouble if one
does not investigate beyond the surface.
> Just take the pure information content of everything that exists out of
> the 'things'. You have pure information.
It is statements like this one that leads me to put your ideas into the
Ideal monism (or Idealism) bin. Have you every read any commentary on
Bishop Berkeley's ideas and arguments? It would be helpful to have some
definitions of terms. I use a version of Bateson's definition of
information: A distinction between two 'things' that makes a difference to
a third thing. I try hard to not use Platonic notions and concepts that
imply that 'things' have innate properties and that ignore the role of
interactions and observers.
I studied semiotics quite a bit (C.S. Peirce's work), it was very
> Now assume that information is continually evolving to compute the current
> state of reality.
Is this happening independent of 'things' or are things that which are
being computed? How is the computation "happening"? If computation is, as I
define it, the transformation of information, then it cannot be considered
as an action that occurs independent of 'things'.
> Where does it exist and evolve? Not in a physical world, but in the
> presence of reality itself.
But that is a problematic idea! "Reality" makes no sense to me if is does
not involve that which is observable, and thus considering reality as
somehow "independent" requires a method to connect it to the physical. Why
add the extra complication? If the physical world *is* an aspect of the
computation (and computations "run" on the physical) and is not independent
of the computations, it removes the need to explain the connection between
the two realms. They are in essence dual in the mathematical sense of an
> Only because there is something that exists called reality which supports
> these computations do they become real and actual...
This claim neglects a selection mechanism that would partition the "real
and actual" from the "unreal...". Existence is not a property that is
contingent on something else. It is pure necessary possibility flowing from
non-self-contradiction. One thing one learns from some deep mathematical
studies is that there are many theories that contradict each other and yet
are self-consistent. It has been proven that theories that include
arithmetic will almost always have statements that cannot be proven true or
false by the theory...
> Imagine reality as analogous to an ocean, and information as the forms
> that may arise within that sea, the ripples, waves, currents etc. This
> information is continually interacting and evolving producing the current
> state of the ocean. That's a good model for reality. Reality is a
> non-physical ocean of being, in which the information forms representing
> all the things of the world continually computationally interact to produce
> the current information state of reality.
I like the continuum metaphor but it falls apart if there is no
consideration of the means by which strata and divisions occur within it. I
am an avowed disciple of Heraclitus and thus like the "Becoming is
fundamental" idea, but one needs to more carefully model how the
interactions may occur such that one has a decent model of the
stratification of forms comes to pass.
> It's really a pretty simple model. You just need to drop the assumption
> reality is physical and dimensional at the fundamental level. Why should it
I dropped the idea that reality is physical and dimensional long ago. I
learned detailed knowledge of QM and GR...
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:08:53 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> Dear Edgar,
>> Several of us do not understand what you mean by "pure abstract
>> computational information" or "real actuality" and thus cannot evaluate
>> your claims. It would be helpful if you proposed some semi-formal
>> definitions or pointed to similar discussion by other authors. It seems to
>> me that your theory is yet another version of ideal monism and there are
>> quite a few of those floating around.
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
>>> How many times do I have to say it before it's clear? Everything in my
>>> model consists of pure abstract computational information running in the
>>> real actuality and presence (the logical space) of reality.
>>> There is NO actual physicality whatsoever. As I've said repeatedly,
>>> physicality, the material world, is how biological organisms interpret the
>>> information world in their mental models, or simulations, of reality.
>>> To understand the theory this must be clearly understood.
>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:35:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R 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
>>>>> You seem to be nit picking...
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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 a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Stephen Paul King
>> Senior Researcher
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
>> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.