On Jan 13, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Terren, > > No, it's not a contradiction. Because present time just is and always has > been without anything happening prior to the big bang. Only when clock time > began to be computed as happening originated at the big bang was there a > measure of time, or rather a time that could be measured by things called > clocks. Just because the universe has always existed and was never created > doesn't mean time is infinite. Infinite is a measure, and there was no > measure of time in a present moment prior to when clock time began to be > computed at the big bang. All there was was an unactualized generalize > quantum vacuum with no measure because nothing was yet happening. > > Edgar > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:57:13 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > Edgar, > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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. There is no getting around this. > Nothing real can be infinite.... > > > This, combined with your insistence on a fundamental time, represents a > contradiction, since if existence has always existed then time is infinite. > Since time is actual in your theory... > > Terren > > Reality was never created. Non-existence cannot exist, therefore existence > (something) has always existed. This is the fundamental self-necessitating > axiom of reality upon which all others stand. 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. > > 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. With the > big bang forms became real and actual and the universe was born and the > computational universe began computing its ongoing evolution.... > > Edgar > Edgar, Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia: Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea. William > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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... >> >> 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 [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. > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
