On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 [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. > > > 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 [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.
