I would like to promote this blog post and the comments on it. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul King < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Edgar, > > LOL! You don't parse what I read very well... I have been saying that > block time is a BS idea. Time is not like that at all. I have a model of > time that works great in physics, but not many know of it. BTW, I do > appreciate your concept, but it is a cartoon with many lacuna. It needs a > lot of formalism and polish to even be said to work. > > For one thing, your notion of a computational space makes no sense at all. > Sorry. > > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Stephen, >> >> I agree with your criticism of Bruno's UDA. It has no explanation for >> becoming, for anything ever happening. I've also pointed this out. >> >> However, this is equally true of block time, which you seem to believe >> in. In block time there is no convincing way anything can ever actually >> happen. >> >> On the other hand my model solves this fundamental problem by positing an >> actively computing reality in a present moment of p-time as the fundamental >> level of reality. >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:54:15 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >>> Dear Bruno, >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:38, Stephen Paul King wrote: >>> >>> Dear Bruno, >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:44, 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. >>> >>> >>> OK. Nice. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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". >>> >>> >>> >>> Why not take the opportunity of Church thesis? It provides the cleanest >>> ever definition in math of an incredible epistemic notion "computability". >>> >>> >>> I don't have any problem with the Church thesis per se, I believe that >>> it is half of the picture of that is going on. Remember I advocate a form >>> of dualism (that of Vaughan Pratt), one that vanishes in the limit of >>> infinite processes/systems into a neutral ground. The neutral ground >>> obtains when we sum over all of the processes and streams and the >>> directions of their arrows. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And computability is the most dynamic notion I can imagine. >>> >>> >>> I do not disagree, but computations require the co-existence of some >>> form of physicality to implement them, even if the physicality is not >>> primitive. In my thinking a physical world obtains from the interactions >>> between observers. It is a "shared reality" that has no existence to >>> observers that are not participants in that reality. (In >>> >>> ... >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. >> > > > > -- > > Kindest Regards, > > Stephen Paul King > > Senior Researcher > > Mobile: (864) 567-3099 > > [email protected] > > http://www.provensecure.us/ > > > “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of > the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain > information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and > exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as > attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message > immediately.” > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
