Dear Edgar,

So far what I am missing are detailed explanations and definitions of
terms. Yes, we could read your book, but we wonder if it's content has
those explanations and definitions. OTOH, I have often explained my ideas
-which are rather technical- and have had thunderous silence in response.
I like people like Bruno that take the time to explain themselves, albeit
in very technical terms that are hard to comprehend at first. I find many
of his ideas very useful and have even come to agree with some of them.


On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of 'Realization'
> deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with serious insights on
> how to directly experience reality as it actually is such as:
>
> 1. The fundamental experience of our existence, our consciousness within a
> present moment through which clock time flows and events happen, is the
> direct experience of the continuing extension of the radial P-time
> dimension of our 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe. Our fundamental
> personal experience is our direct experience of the fundamental
> cosmological process.
>

This is not a new concept for me. It does not get to the questions I am
asking. If you had a toy model that would explain the basic concept, how it
works, I would be more interested. Please understand that I have been
studying philosophy of science and mathematics for a long time, focusing on
quantum gravity phenomenology, the problem of time and the mind-body
problem; the hard problems and have read just about every book and article
on the subject.
  Lately, I have been working on a proposal to research a novel form of
computation that requires a very deep dive into algebraic topology and
complexity theory and have learned a few things, one of which is that
computation and information are not simple concepts and have to be treated
very carefully and formally -as much as possible. Tossing the word
computation around as if it where a magic amulet to banish ignorance isn't
helping me. Understanding how the physical world and computations work
together is not a trivial problem and one should have at least a basic
model of how it works to communicate one's offered explanations.



>
> 2. It is possible to directly experience that everything is its
> information only.
>

What else is there? What we experience are distinctions that make a
difference, to paraphrase Bateson. 



> With understanding it becomes quite clear and directly observable that for
> anything to be observed and experienced it simply must consist of
> information. If it did not consist of information it would not be
> observable. What we mistake for material things in a physical universe are
> simply associations of different kinds of pure information. For example
> what we normally think of as material stone is actually an association of
> colors, feelings of texture, resistance to motion, temperature etc. all of
> which are actually just different types of information.
>

Of course, this is not a new idea.



>
> So it is very very clear that everything is its information only, and that
> this can be directly experienced. In fact we all directly experience this
> all the time already, we just don't realize that we do.....
>

Ah, but that is wrong. There must exist entities to whom those
distinctions that make a difference occur. Information alone explains
nothing. It is possible to define "entities" using information + dynanics,
as Louis H. Kauffman does with his notion of an eigenform, but this
requires that we treat information in a more subtle way that mere allusions
to "direct experience", etc.



>
> Things have no 'self-substances'. They are all pure information whose only
> 'substance' is OE. This is a modern statement of the ancient Vedic insight
> that 'all forms are empty'.
>

I slightly agree! It is easy to define things starting with a core of
self-reference - that aspect of computation that is the physical system's
exact self-simulation- and build out from there to consider how other
physical systems interact and communicate, but one has to have a basis of
concepts that include a pluralities of observers even if such are entities
only defined as that which a distinction makes a difference. Information is
*of a thing* and *to a thing*, it is not an independent substance that we
can mold into what ever form we like.




>
> 3. In my treatment of 'Realization' I also suggest that IF anyone needs a
> God then the only rational definition is the universe itself because then
> there is no doubt as to God's existence, and his attributes then become a
> matter of scientific inquiry.
>


I have no need for that hypothesis!

>
>
> So Stephen, as you can see, my book is hardly the 'New Age' nonsense your
> knee jerk reaction imagined...
>

It is you that is having that imagination. I would not level an accusation
of New Age nonsense at your book. You might like Andrew Soltau's
book<http://www.andrewsoltau.com/>as an example of a good attempt to
answer hard questions about "reality"
that stays just outside of the New Age. For a hard science take, I
recommend Russell Standish's *A theory of Nothing
<http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html>*.

  I am far too ADHD to write a publishable book....



>
> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 <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...
>> </block
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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.

Reply via email to