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 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.

Reply via email to