Stephen, Typo alert. That should obviously be Bruno's UDA, not USA!
Edgar On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:24:24 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > 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.
