We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe where
addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old. Not quite old enough
to get to infinity! This applies all the types of infinity you mention.
The universe (extended quantum vacuum) has always existed but there was no
clock time so there is no measure of the duration of its existence so it
has not existed forever nor is it infinitely old. These are human concepts
which do not apply. Time was not 'flowing' prior to the big bang.
I was trying to keep things simple but it is certainly possible to have big
bounces. I posted a possible theory on that and entropy and gravitational
reversal a couple of days ago in detail. Did you see that? I certainly
don't rule out a bouncing universe.
The computational universe is created by an actualization event in the
generalized quantum vacuum. Perhaps a bounce, perhaps something else.
A good analogy is a perfectly still ocean of water. It is originally
formless but forms can arise within it. The nature of the water is what
determines what forms can arise within that ocean. Likewise OE (the
generalized quantum vacuum) was originally formless but its intrinsic
nature determines what information forms can actualize and arise and exist
within it. In the original formless ocean nothing happens so there can be
no observations therefore it is impossible to even confirm its existence.
However once things start happening it becomes observable and one can
measure it and confirm its existence.
Things must be observable to properly be considered real and actual...
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:36:00 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
> 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
> 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?
> On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:23:39 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>> 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?
>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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 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
>> For more options, visit
> 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
> 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 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.