On 18 Jan 2014, at 16:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
That's not an 'argument'. You are simply stating an hypothesis
without any logical supporting argument.
Not at all. I gave you an argument. Computational physics entails
comp, and comp entails NON-computational physics by the UDA, so
without any assumption computational physics entails a contradiction.
As to your second point you are talking about clock time, not p-time.
I was takling on the subjective 1p present 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.
The clock I was takling about is not moving, just accelerating the
frequence, but resting in the same place.
Bruno
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].
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.
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.
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.
