Stephen, I didn't really expect you to buy my book, but a lot of other people are....
And I agree with you most people who tell you how to experience reality are scam artists..... Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > "how to directly experience reality as it actually is." Now I am most > definitely not buying your book. Sorry, but that statement is anathema to > me. I have had quite enough of people claiming to have a way for me to know > "what is really going on". 99.99999999999999% of the time they > are peddling snake oil. > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > A couple of responses. > > Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own > merits... Don't shoehorn! > > Only information is being computed. It exists independent of things. What > are called 'things' are mental interpretations of computational information > domains extracted by biological organisms to facilitate their internal > simulation computations of a continuous reality. > > The information in reality is continuous but it does manifest as domains. > Humans look at domains and variously simulate them as things. E.g. surfers > extract waves from a continuous ocean while oceanographers see currents, > and smelt see tides. There are no individual 'things' in reality because it > is a continuous computational nexus of information. E.g looking at some > area of continuous information we can identify either leaves, twigs, > branches or a whole tree. It's all one continuous information segment but > minds can separate it into overlapping 'things' to facilitate mental > computations. If you understand how robots extract 'things' from raw > sensory input you will understand that. It's a very complex and difficult > and eventually an artificial process dependent on the structure of the > observer's mind... > > Actually the information world, the fact that all is its information only > IS directly observable with understanding and practice. I explain this in > Part VI of my book titled "Realization", that is how to directly experience > reality as it actually is. > > Yes, understanding QM and GR clearly demonstrates reality is not physical. > But that's just the beginning of actually experiencing it as the pure > information it actually is. > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:25:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stephen, > > It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand > it. > > > 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 > useful... > > > > 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 > isomorphism. > > > > 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 > be? > > > I dropped the idea that reality is physical and dimensional long ago. I > learned detailed knowledge of QM and GR... > > > > > Edgar > > > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Liz, > > 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. > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:35:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R 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... > </block > > ... -- 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.
