Bruno, Stop trying to put words in my mouth and don't tell me what I can or can't assume.
I can assume anything I want and if it works then that's good evidence the assumption was valid... Edgar On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:13:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > 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. > > > You assume a primitive physical reality? > > > > > But I maintain it is all being computed at a more fundamental level by > active computational process of pure abstract information. > > > Like in arithmetic? > > That is really the question I ask. You cannot assume "active computational > process of pure abstract information". You must tell me what you assume to > provide interpretation of those words. > > In fact, seen from comp, you have two basic choices. > > Either, like a physicist-aristotelian, you search the universal numbers > which mirrors the better the observation. > Or like, a Platonist rational mystic, you serach the explanation in your > head, and here the result is that the unique universal numbers which > explains what you observe has a reason, and it results by a sort of dialog > among all universal numbers. (this has the advantage of explaining both > mind, and the origin of matter). > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Good scientists can communicate in ways which does not depend on the > interpretation. Not all scientists do that, 'course. > > > > > So far as I know my theory is completely consistent > > > > I still don't see a theory. Sorry. > > > > with all currently accepted modern hard physical science, > > > Is that not a weakness? How to test your theory? > > > > but certainly NOT with the usual interpretations of that science. > > > Are you doing philosophy of science? > > Are you not just providing a "new" interpretation? > > Bruno > > > > 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: > > ... -- 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.
