On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite.
You believe there is only one physical universe, right? What is your
justification for this? How do you know there wasn't another big bang
really far away that we cannot see? Or for that matter another universe
altogether, with different laws? I see only assertions from you, but no
reasons, arguments, justifications, etc.
> See my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real
> and actual can be infinite....
> We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate
> physics somewhere only then you can ask me why I don't assume it.
There are many solutions in string theory, what prohibits the others from
existing? Eternal inflation says there are an infinite number of big
bangs, what does it get wrong?
> I don't assume any 'collapse of wave'.... I posit what best explains
> reality as it is observed.
If there is no collapse of the wave, then there are many worlds. But you
reject both collapse and many-worlds, which seems contradictory. It is the
presumption of collapse that is the justification for saying there is only
one real world, when the mathematics of QM predict there should be many.
> There is not "only one" computation being performed in OE. There are
> uncountable googles of them in every processor cycle since every element of
> information in the entire universe is effectively a processor containing
> both code and data. But to assume all possible computations are being
> computed is rather off the wall since we observe only the results of those
> that are actually being computed,
Assume for a moment that all possible types of physical universes were
being computed. Do you believe we would *necessarily *be aware of their
existence? I don't think we would, just like the hypothetical fish under
the ice of Europa would not be aren't aware of anything else beyond their
tiny isolated view of reality. Given that, I don't think it is valid to use
our perceptions to say what does not exist, only because we cannot see it
before our eyes.
> and they most certainly aren't all possible ones. How about sticking to
> what is actually real and observable instead of engaging in wild 'what ifs'?
I don't consider these wild "what ifs", these are legitimate questions,
which are seriously considered and debated by serious scientists.
> Yes, of course there is something external to biological minds that
> informs their internal simulations. Biological minds continually sample the
> current logical structures of their information environments. They exist
> and function within their information environments to the extent that
> sampling is accurate. All the rest is qualia that mind adds to external
> reality in its simulation of it.
So if every being only has access to their local environments, what
justification is there to deny the existence of other possibilities
elsewhere (beyond the scope of those creature's perceptions)?
> Biological organisms do function effectively in their information
> environments. That is how we confirm they do accurately represent it as
> internal knowledge. However that representation is highly embellished to
> make it appear as a physical dimensional world full of colors, feelings,
> meanings etc. which are not in the external world but only in our internal
> simulation of it.
> The fact that we do exist and function within our information environment
> PROVES we do know what is real and what is sci fi.
Descartes cast serious doubt on this and he hasn't been refuted in the
hundreds of years since making his ideas public. We can know that our
thought is real, and from there maybe guess that some thinker is real, but
beyond that the foundation becomes very shaky and you won't find any proof
that what you think is real in your perceptions correspond to reality,
unless you go so far as to say perceptions are the only reality. But then
you will fall into solipsism and immaterialism.
> If our functioning works according to some set of rules then those rules
> are reality, if our functioning doesn't work then the rules we functioned
> by are sci fi, or worse, delusion.
> Truth is internal consistency of our simulation across maximum scope. If
> there is some inconsistency then we don't have true knowledge of reality to
> that extent.
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:21:03 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:44 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual
>> reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
>> How do you know reality is really as small and limited as you think it
>> is? Some fish in a pond might think their pond constitutes all of reality.
>> So what assumptions led you to the idea that the universe is finite and
>> that what we see is the only possible physics?
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> So you accept that the physical world can be an illusion, but somehow you
>> know deep down that the flow of time, the collapse of the wave, and the
>> unicity of the physical laws are not illusions. I am intererested to know
>> how you came to decide what was illusory and what is reality.
>> 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.
>> Can your reasoning deduce that only one (and not all possible
>> computations) are being performed by this ontological energy? That is a
>> step I am not seeing any justification for.
>> 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'.
>> I agree with this for some sense of the word reality. But I also would
>> say there is something external to our experiences that explains their
>> 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.
>> It is only these internal biological simulations that there is any
>> evidence for. There is no evidence of any 'matrix' type simulations.
>> Read Nick Bostrom's simulation argument. It is not proven, but it is not
>> disproven either.
>> 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...
>> How do we distinguish science fiction from science reality if we are
>> trapped in the reality our mind creates for us? I would say the best we can
>> do is firm models and see how they compare to experience. You have told us
>> your conclusions, but not given us the model that led you to them. I think
>> I speak for many on the list when I say this is what we are curious to see,
>> since otherwise we have no idea how you got to the conclusions you have
>> arrived upon.
>> On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:05:29 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>>> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> 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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.