Bruno, That's not an 'argument'. You are simply stating an hypothesis without any logical supporting argument.
As to your second point you are talking about clock time, not p-time. You still don't understand the difference which I've described in exhausting detail... Moving clocks have nothing to do with p-time, they measure clock time. Edgar On Saturday, January 18, 2014 4:53:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jan 2014, at 18:04, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > John, > > I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is and what it > applies to in my New Topic post "Another shot at how spacetime emerges from > computational reality". > > > You did not answer the argument that there is no computational physical, > or theological, or psychological reality. the computational reality is > entirely defined by a tiny fragment of arithmetic, and it is embedded in a > vast non computable reality (and that play a role due to the FPI). > > > > > Basically nature must choose randomly > > > Which nature? You reify nature. That is (epistemologically) inconsistent. > > Here is a problem with a common p-time for everybody. If I slow the clock > of may artifical brain (a von Neuman machine, say), then from my point of > view time "accelerated". I can see the needle of the clock moving rapidly. > My first person p-time is made different from all the others. > No problem with this in the indexical relative setting. > > Bruno > > > > when it aligns the separate spacetime networks that arise from particle > property conservation when particles computationally interact. That's > because there can be no deterministic way to align separate spacetimes, so > nature must choose randomly among the available possibilities..... > > Edgar > > > > On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:57:08 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I give a coherent definition of free will in my book on Reality. Free >>> will is simply the fact that some bounded system generates actions that are >>> not entirely determined by its environmental inputs. >>> >> >> OK, then the term "free will" is synonymous with the word "random". But >> there is no great mystery in how that came about and it doesn't matter if >> brain >> microtubules vibrate or not; as I've said more than once I know of no >> law of logic that demands that every event have a cause. A deeper question >> than "why are some things random?" would be "why isn't everything random?". >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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.
