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 <liz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 16:19, Stephen Paul King <step...@provensecure.com>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 <liz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 13:55, Stephen Paul King <step...@provensecure.com> 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 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.
