Bruno, To answer your questions sequentially.
I don't see any way "the arithmetical true relations" compute or emulate anything. They just sit there motionless and nothing happens. You haven't explained how motion arises from non-motion and no one else here understands that either. Reality is one continuous program but every information element actively computes its evolution. Which program is it? It's the program that it is of course. You seem to think there are a bunches of software reality can pick off some magical shelf and run. Ain't so. Reality runs the program that it actually is that actually computes actual reality. Yes, the program is Turing compute and Godel complete, or more properly those concepts don't apply since every state is immediately computed from the prior state and that can ALWAYS be done, just as it IS always done in ALL software. Sorry you can't make sense of the necessity that the computations have to happen SOMEWHERE. That somewhere is the present moment of reality, where else would the computations that compute reality take place? The reason your Platonia doesn't work is because it LACKS such an actual present moment that provides the happening that makes my computations real and actual and provides the movement that makes them happen.... Edgar On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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 <[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, > > <div style="font-family:arial,helv > > ... -- 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.
