On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason, > > There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists. > That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one physical universe. > > It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality > but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time > thinking about it. > Fine tuning, eternal inflation, no collapse theories, string theory, arithmetical realism, to name a few. Also, I could throw the same argument back at you: until you give me some evidence this is the only possible universe that can exist, why should I waste my time with the conclusions you draw from that? As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologists assume their must be > multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after all. > > Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you.. > > What are your arguments? All I see is "I see no evidence for X so I won't waste my time with X and instead will decide to believe X is false". This is not an argument, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, there is substantial evidence for many of the above theories I mentioned, all of which have "multiple universes" as a consequence. Jason On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> 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. >> > > I agree. > > >> >> 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. > > Jason > > >> 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. >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:21:03 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:44 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Terren, >>> >>> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual >>> reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be. >>> >>> >>> Edgar, >>> >>> 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 >>> existence. >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:05:29 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>> >>>> Edgar, >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> moment). >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Terren >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Liz, >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> to 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 [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. > -- 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.
