On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:31, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running
computer program.
Run by which computer? Arithmetic or some physical reality?
"running computer program" is ambiguous.
It's always able to compute its next computation.
It is the universal machine which run the programs which do that. Not
the program itself.
Same with the 'program' that computes reality.
But which reality run that program?
It is always able to compute the next state of the universe.
No program can compute its next state (I prove this in my long
(french) text).
Amazingly, a program can compute and output a program computing its
next state, but it cannot run it, without changing its next state as
computed by the program given as output.
If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a universe but there is.
I know you find this obvious. But I think it might be false. Even
contradictory. I have given reason for this in a preceding post to
you. But you need to study the UDA to get it well.
Therefore Godel does NOT apply to the running program of reality
just as it does NOT apply to all the computer programs running all
over the world right now.
Gödel's theorem applies to all programs and all effective theories.
Therefore the actual logico-mathematical system that continually
computes reality MUST BE logically self-consistent and logically
complete.
"computes reality" has no meaning, unless you make this much more
precise. You talk like if the word "reality" has a simple
interpretation, but that is not true.
It's a very simple insight...
You might have an insight, but you did not succeed in communicating it
to me.
I explained the difference in my previous post but you ignored that.
Reality math
I have already asked you to explain what you mean by that. Neither
"math" nor reality" can be used as a primitive terms, on which we can
find simple axioms to agree on.
does not just write down some statement and then try to reach it
computationally. That would be teleology and Godel might apply but
reality doesn't do that, it just always computes the next state from
the current state which it can ALWAYS do.
Sorry but this is not understandable. No meaning, or too much meaning.
Do you believe in teleology? If you think Godel applies to the
computations of reality math you are arguing for teleology....
Define "reality math", or explain. Otr just use your theory to see if
it agrees with UDA, or part of it. UDA is specially build so that you
don't need any knowledge to grasp it, except for a passive
understanding of how a computer works.
Bruno
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:48:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid
in Jr. High School?
By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does
in his Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logically
complete because the next step is always computable because it's
always being computed. Human math is not logically complete because
humans can formulate well formed statements in math without first
computing them from axioms, and ONLY THEN try to compute them from
the axioms.
Reality doesn't formulate statements (reality states) and then try
to reach them (that's teleology), it simple computes the next state
from the current state which it can always do. Thus reality math is
logically complete. Human math isn't, as Godel demonstrated,
That is wrong. Gödel proves that for all effective theories, or all
consistent machines.
"reality" math is not defined. If it is just "math", Gödel's theorem
does not apply, because "math" is not a formal theory, but human
math is also not formal or effective.
without changes to it's axioms to bring it in line with reality math.
All consistent axiomatic theories obeys to Gödel's theorem. You can
add as many axioms you want, the theory obtained will obey to
Gödel's incompleteness. Arithmetic is called "essentially"
undecidable. It means that arithmetical theories and *all* their
effective extensions obeys to the theorem.
Bruno
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:47:32 AM UTC-5, Jason 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:
The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through
certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also
art, etc.).
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher
kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall
live or have lived.
There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly
intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.
The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by
composition.
Concepts have an objective existence.
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.
Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.
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 'ontolog
...
--
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.
