Bruno, Of course I assume ALL established science, QM, SR, GR and all the rest, always subject to correction and improvement of the science of course.
But I maintain it is all being computed at a more fundamental level by active computational process of pure abstract information. BUT I reject most of the current INTERPRETATIONS of that science (which are so often mistaken for the actual science) and instead offer a completely new and unifying paradigm in the way of interpretation. So far as I know my theory is completely consistent with all currently accepted modern hard physical science, but certainly NOT with the usual interpretations of that science. Edgar On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:15:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Stephen, > > Bruno and I agree on this one, our usually imagined space is completely a > construction of our minds. That is fundamental to my theory. I explain in > detail how it happens in my new topic post "Another shot at how spacetime > emerges from quantum computations" if anyone cares to read it... > > > > So you do assume quantum mechanics? > > Yes or no? > > I still don't figure out what you are assuming. > > Bruno > > > > Edgar > > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:44:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear LizR, > > But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying. > *Space > is completely a construction of our minds.* *There is no 3,1 dimensional > Riemannian manifold out there*. We measure events and our minds put those > together into tableaux that we communicate about and agree on, because our > languages, like formal logical system, force the results to obey a set of > implied rules. We formulate explanations, formulate models and look for > rules that the models might obey. Hopefully we can make predictions and > measure something... > > I really really like Bruno's notion of an observer. If only we could see > eye to eye on the definitions of some other concepts... Such as that > Computation is an *action* or transformation, not a static "being". > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:22 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 16:19, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote: > > Dear LizR, > > Yeah, Zeno didn't know about calculus... I was speaking to the idea that > "time moves". It doesn't, there is nothing to move. It is not an object > that can be observed. We can measure measures of time: duration, sequence > and energy. It is amazing how our minds can create "things" out of ideas > that are not even true. > > > I agree that time doesn't move. And "motion in space-time" doesn't make > sense either. Motion in space, however... > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:09 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 13:55, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]> w > > ... -- 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.
