On 18 Jan 2014, at 19:51, Edgar L. Owen 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.

I agree. Stephen seems to be contradictory on that issue.




On the other hand my model solves this fundamental problem by positing an actively computing reality

How can I distinguish it from the actively computing reality emulated by the arithmetical true relations?

Is reality one program? Can you tell which one?

Is your computation framework Turing complete? If not is less or more than Turing complete?





in a present moment of p-time as the fundamental level of reality.

I cannot make sense of that, either with QM, nor with SR, nor with CR, nor with comp, ... Sorry.

Bruno





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 <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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 <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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.

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 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