Sigh.... Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 
'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves 
offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories 
of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair?

The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is 
Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing 
me because I don't have one?

What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately 
describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether 
that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite 
accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization 
and that's why it was accepted.

Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is 
no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite 
tightly formalized but I see none of the required actual consistency with 
reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all.

Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no consistency 
with actual reality. Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with 
actual reality because it clearly states that the computations of its 
computational reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute 
the real processes of nature, whatever they are.

Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated assumption 
that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow even if it's doing 
nothing. A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for 
whatsoever. Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that 
initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the 
assumption itself isn't.

I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of scientific 
method. Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is 
its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed phenomena.


My theory on the other hand takes 

On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:52:34 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
> On 14 January 2014 04:31, Edgar L. Owen < <javascript:>>wrote:
>> Stephen,
>> It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand 
>> it.
>> Just take the pure information content of everything that exists out of 
>> the 'things'. You have pure information. Now assume that information is 
>> continually evolving to compute the current state of reality. Where does it 
>> exist and evolve? Not in a physical world, but in the presence of reality 
>> itself. Only because there is something that exists called reality which 
>> supports these computations do they become real and actual...
> Ooh, "It from bit!" 
> If you want to take the pure information content out of things, you have 
> to explain what that means. Try a simple example. An electron, perhaps? The 
> information content is an electric charge, a mass, a spin. I think that's 
> all, isn't it? So, what does it mean for that information to be extracted, 
> where does it live, how does it evolve, etc? Over to you!
> We can move on to "the presence of reality itself" once we have a formal 
> definition or worked examples (or SOMETHING) for the information part.

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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to