On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:32 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.
Usually that we can keep adding 1 is used to demonstrate infinity, not
disprove it. What is the largest number or the last prime?
Could there not be an infinite number of different programs, each
processing different things forever?
There is no getting around this. Nothing real can be infinite....
I don't share this intuition, but could there not be an infinite
number of finite real things? That would make reality infinite. And
either way you might equally describe reality by the infinite number
of thibgs it does not contaib. Either way you run into infinities.
Reality was never created.
Does that mean it is infinitely old? If time flows and the universe
was not created it must have an infinite past.
Non-existence cannot exist, therefore existence (something) has
always existed. This is the fundamental self-necessitating axiom of
reality upon which all others stand.
I, like the Sikhs, would call this the infinite uncreated truth. It is
self-existent and the reason we exist.
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.
So for you, what is this axiom?
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.
So for you the quantum vacuum has existed forever and explains our
existance? Most theories like this don't presume only a single big
bang is all that can result.
With the big bang forms became real and actual and the universe was
born and the computational universe began computing its ongoing
evolution....
So was the computational universe created by the quartm vacuum or did
it exist before?
Jason
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.
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.
