On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
>> basic axioms and concepts of the theory.
>>
>
> Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which
> are the ones derived from those axioms?
>
>
>>
>> 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
>> 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
>> 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the
>> actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT
>> the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the
>> actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the
>> science, which in my view is often completely wrong.
>> 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually
>> computes the current state of the universe.
>> 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a
>> physical, material world.
>> 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects
>> because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of
>> existence, what I call ontological energy.
>> 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of
>> reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible
>> realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed
>> because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine
>> tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is
>> actual.
>> 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be
>> real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist.
>>
>> etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come
>> from which you can judge...
>>
>
> If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as
> then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For example, in the
> first one you say "existence must exist because non-existence cannot
> exist". It would seem then that "non-existence cannot exist" is an axiom,
> and from that it follows that existence must exist.  Regarding the second
> point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you
> mean by logically complete?
>
>
>>
>> The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the
>> basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal
>> presentation of the theory as I have.
>>
>>
> This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy.
> His were:
>
>
>    1. The world is rational.
>    2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through
>    certain techniques).
>    3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also
>    art, etc.).
>    4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and
>    higher kind.
>    5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall
>    live or have lived.
>    6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently
>    known.
>    7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is
>    thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
>    8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
>    9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
>    10. Materialism is false.
>
> Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so was
> skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He missed
> the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett.
>
>
>
>
>
>    1. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by
>    composition.
>    2. Concepts have an objective existence.
>    3. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals
>    with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly
>    fruitful for science.
>    4. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.
>
> All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger statement: 10
> becomes "Weak materialism" is false, for example.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
Bruno,

What is the distinction between materialism and weak materialism? I tried
to search on Google but found no clear answer.  Thanks.

Jason


> Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one sounds
> like Godel's 10th.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> Edgard,
>>>
>>> You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not what
>>> you are assuming at the start.  So what are those minimal assumptions you
>>> took as true at the start which led to your other deductions?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jason,
>>>>
>>>> I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in
>>>> considerable detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon' I've
>>>> used is the single neologism 'ontological energy' which I've defined
>>>> clearly.
>>>>
>>>> I can't help it if reality is a difficult subject. What frustrates me
>>>> is not the disagreements which are to be expected but disagreements based
>>>> on misunderstanding of what I've stated quite clearly and people thinking
>>>> I've said the exact opposite. That is most certainly not a problem with the
>>>> explanations but with the reading....
>>>>
>>>> Edgar
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:13:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Liz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sigh.... Now we have several people complaining because I haven't
>>>>>> offered a 'formal theory'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A first (and great) step would be just to explain in clear normal
>>>>> language (no jargon) what you assume, and what you derive from those
>>>>> assumptions. You don't have to give us a bunch of equations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edgar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 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 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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