Stephen, OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far.
1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that. 2. Do you agree that Bruno's USA can also be discounted for the same reason block time can be, that there is no way to get movement out of it? 3. Do you agree that there must be some fundamental notion of movement (not movement in space, but in the sense of things happening) at the fundamental level? 4. Do you agree that implies some notion of time flowing? 5. Do you agree that reality is fundamentally computational? That in some sense or other the universe is the result of a computational process? The advantages are that this immediately explains "the unreasonable effectiveness of math" and solves the problem of how there can be laws of nature that somehow mysteriously control an assumed physical universe from some nether realm outside that universe (a problem Penrose grapples with unsuccessfully in his 'Road to Reality'). Assuming a computational reality immediate incorporates the laws of nature as an actual part of that reality that actively compute it. Let's stop here for now and see if we can agree on these 5 to begin with. And feel free to suggest some points of your own if you like... Best, Edgar On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:34:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Stephen, > > Yes, I understand not necessarily moving in space but just moving in the > sense of being actively computed. That's what I am talking about. Thought > that was understood... > > And I do NOT take perception as passive. It's an ACTIVE computation, a > computational interaction with the program of an organism with that of > sensory information input from the external world's computations. I thought > that was understood also.. > > And there is no SEPARATE computational space (that needs to be proposed). > There is ONLY computational space. All actual reality is the current > computational results of that computational space. There is no actual > classical physical world. The notion of a physical material world is an > INTERPRETATION of the information results of the computational space in the > mind of some observer. It's the way the information is modeled or simulated > by a mind. > > Edgar > > > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:05:38 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stephen, > > It's an error to assume that perception has anything to do with things > moving. > > > No, No! Not moving in a space- changing position coordinates, but some > form of motion. For example, the spin of an electron is a form of motion, > but it is not moving in the usual sense. > > > > The current information state of the entire universe is continually being > computed whether it's being perceived by anyone or not. Perception has > nothing to do with it except apparently in the erroneous block time and UD > theories which seem to claim that without things being perceived there is > no motion, and that therefore there is no 'actual' motion which is > anthropomorphic nonsense.... > > > If the computation is the perception? My beef with your thinking is that > you take perception as a passive relation and not an action. > > > <bl > > ... -- 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.
