2014/1/13 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> > Terren, > > I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation > is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't > accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The > 'Matrix' scenario that you can't distinguish between all possible > simulations is adolescent irrational sci fi BS. And if you recall, even in > the Matrix they COULD tell which was real and which wasn't. > > I really wonder who is the irrational bullshitter here.... This list becomes more and more boring.
Quentin > If your simulation was seriously inaccurate you wouldn't be here to tell > me I couldn't tell.... > > Edgar > > > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:58:13 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > >> Edgar, >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Terren, >>> >>> Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical >>> realities being computed. There is no Platonia.... >>> >> >> If what you're positing is a fundamental computational reality, then >> there's nothing in principle that can select a single computational reality >> over any other. All you appear to be doing is making that an assumption of >> your theory, but it doesn't really buy you anything and it contradicts >> computer science. Sounds exactly like the argument over P-Time and Block >> time... what a coincidence! >> >> >>> You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in my >>> theory. >>> >> >> Right, and because Platonia is logically implied given (what appear to >> be) your assumptions, it signifies that your theory is inconsistent. >> >> >>> There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present >>> moment P-time. It's the most fundamental obvious observation of our >>> existence. Just pull your head out of your books and look around for >>> goodness sakes. Are you alive? If so you are alive in the present moment... >>> >> >> But you have pointed out that every observation we can make is based on a >> constructed illusion. How do you go from the time we experience in the >> constructed illusion of our experience, to the actual time of the universe? >> You have yet to justify that move. >> >> >>> No two observers compute the same retinal sky. Everyone's simulation of >>> reality is different. >>> >> >> Agreed. But there are an infinity of possible programs that compute your >> retinal sky in this moment such that it would be impossible for you to >> distinguish between them, from the inside. That fact has nothing to do with >> my retinal sky, or anyone else's. >> >> >>> There is absolute certain evidence for "real, actual reality". >>> >> >> Evidence for reality only makes sense within a given theory. All we have >> are models. What we are all doing here is a search for "the best" model. >> Even if we think we have it, we can still never know what reality really >> is. IOW there is no such thing as "absolute certain evidence" for anything. >> You're engaging in dogma, as if there is only one possible model. >> >> >>> Something has to be real because we exist, and what we exist in is >>> reality. Whatever that is is the "real, actual reality". Anyone who doesn't >>> think reality actually exists is brain dead.... >>> >> >> You seem to be saying that our existence is a fact that refutes the >> possibility that we are, as Bruno describes it, "the numbers' dreams". And >> while that *is* counter-intuitive, it's not a logical impossibility - on >> the contrary, if you say yes to the doctor, it must be the case, unless >> there is a flaw with the UDA. >> >> Terren >> >> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Edgar, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Terren, >>>>> >>>>> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual >>>>> reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your own >>>> mental simulation of it, it's not clear how you can be so sure about what >>>> "actual reality" is. I understand you have a theory, but that's all any of >>>> us have. We can rule theories out when contradicted by evidence, but you >>>> haven't provided that, unless you count various hand-waving statements. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental >>>>> simulation of its external reality environment. This whole system, >>>>> external >>>>> world simulated by the minds of multiple biological observers, actually >>>>> consists only of computational information flows in the presence and >>>>> logical space of reality. Everything, including ourselves, is analogous to >>>>> running, interacting software programs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with that. However in the logical, computational space you >>>> anchor your theory in (something referred to on this list sometimes as >>>> Platonia), there are an infinity of such "logical realities" that go >>>> through your current computational state. From your first-person >>>> perspective you cannot predict which of the infinite continuations you will >>>> inhabit in the next moment. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The apparent physicality of reality in the minds of biological >>>>> organisms is an evolutionary adaptation to make reality seem more >>>>> meaningful and easier to function within. This physicality is not real, >>>>> it's an internal mental illusion. I devote the entire Part IV of my book >>>>> dissecting this illusion and explaining how it works. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, I agree, and this is an important insight. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The book also explains in detail how once we identify and subtract >>>>> everything mind adds to reality we arrive at what reality actually is, >>>>> pure >>>>> information computationally evolving in the logical space of reality I >>>>> call >>>>> ontological energy. When we peel back all the various layers of >>>>> physicality >>>>> that mind adds to external reality its remaining purely abstract >>>>> information structure is clearly revealed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Personally, I think your theory fails because it insists on a single, >>>> fundamental computational universe, running in "P-time", for which there is >>>> no evidence or theoretical justification (none that you have provided, >>>> anyway). I know you point relentlessly to our everyday experience of >>>> present-moments, but using introspection as evidence is problematic >>>> precisely because as you have pointed out, our subjective reality is based >>>> on an illusion constructed in the mind. >>>> >>>> Going from Ontological Energy to Platonia is the same move as going >>>> from P-Time to Block Time. >>>> >>>> >>>>> We all live in a world that is actually almost entirely a construct of >>>>> our mental simulations of an external information reality. Thus when we >>>>> look out into the world we are mostly looking into the structures of our >>>>> own minds. We live inside our minds under what I call the 'retinal sky'. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Retinal sky is a good term. Imagine how many different kinds of >>>> programs could compute the same retinal sky for any given moment. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Just as robots function within environments they simulate internally >>>>> with computations, so do all biological organisms including ourselves. We >>>>> do no 'see' the real actual world, we compute internal models of it and >>>>> live within those. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, and this is why it is so unclear as to how you can be so certain >>>> about what constitutes the "real actual world". Do you have access to some >>>> kind of oracle? >>>> >>>> >>>>> It is only these internal biological simulations that there is any >>>>> evidence for. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Again, if you could only turn such statements inward on your own >>>> theories, I think it would be much easier for your ideas to gain traction. >>>> >>>> >>>>> There is no evidence of any 'matrix' type simulations. That's just >>>>> adolescent sci fi unless there is some actual evidence. Again I went >>>>> through that sci fi phase back in the 1960's in a short story i wrote on >>>>> the same theme titled "The Livies". Let's stick to evidence based reality >>>>> rather than sci fi... >>>>> >>>> >>>> By your own admission above there is no evidence for the "real, actual >>>> reality" you've articulated either. It all looks like sci-fi to the naive >>>> realist. If we dismissed theories on the basis of weirdness, we would have >>>> tossed QM out the window a century ago. >>>> >>>> Terren >>>> >>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:05:29 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Edgar, >>>>>> >>>>>> That begs the question. You start by assuming reality is computed, >>>>>> and then conclude that because reality exists, reality must be computed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again I will point out that except for one key difference, your ideas >>>>>> and Bruno's are actually pretty similar. The difference of course being >>>>>> that the UDA entails that there are an infinity of computed realities. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me approach this from a different direction. Given that you agree >>>>>> that you could be digitally replaced and not notice the difference, this >>>>>> also entails that you could be placed into a simulation, where your >>>>>> simulated brain is functionally identical to your real brain or the >>>>>> prosthetic brain that could replace it with you noticing. So a simulation >>>>>> of you embedded in a simulated world is also conscious - this is more or >>>>>> less what your theory of consciousness says. The next step is to see that >>>>>> there are an infinity of possible simulations that contain your current >>>>>> brain state, and thus your consciousness, in this moment (or any given >>>>>> moment). >>>>>> >>>>>> If you're still with me we can go back to the UDA, which in so many >>>>>> words says that all of these infinite simulations exist in Platonia, >>>>>> traced >>>>>> by the Universal Dovetailer (a rather simple program) - and your moment >>>>>> by >>>>>> moment reality is a view from the inside of the infinity of simulations >>>>>> that contain you. Indeed, physics and the physical world in general >>>>>> represent a stable measure on the kinds of worlds that could support your >>>>>> consciousness. But because the infinity of simulations is necessarily >>>>>> what >>>>>> renders the physical world, it is not computable. That is the >>>>>> contradiction >>>>>> entailed by a computational universe such as you elaborate in your >>>>>> theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your objection about human math and reality math, I believe, is an >>>>>> attempt to refute step 8 of the UDA - that is usually the most >>>>>> problematic >>>>>> step for people who don't agree with the UDA. It would be very >>>>>> interesting >>>>>> if you could identify a flaw in the UDA, supported by arguments rather >>>>>> than >>>>>> simple assertion, as you have done to this point. >>>>>> >>>>>> Terren >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show >>>>>>> it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even >>>>>>> assume >>>>>>> a computational universe in the first place you have to assume (you are >>>>>>> assuming) that it computes reality. The fact that reality exists is >>>>>>> conclusive proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of >>>>>>>>> occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What more >>>>>>>>> convincing proof could there be? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One that explains why that has to be so would be a good start. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure >>>>>>>>> nonsense that is conclusively falsified by the very existence of >>>>>>>>> reality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The point is that certain assumptions lead to certain conclusions. >>>>>>>> If the conclusions invalidate the assumptions, then the correct >>>>>>>> response is >>>>>>>> to throw out the original assumptions as invalid. Bruno starts from the >>>>>>>> assumption that consciousness is a form of computation and draws >>>>>>>> certain >>>>>>>> inferences. This isn't what comp "claims" it's what the argument shows, >>>>>>>> given the assumptions. The only way to falsify it is to show that one >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the assumptions is wrong, or that there is a flaw in the reasoning that >>>>>>>> leads to the conclusions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
