Dear Edgar, Cool! We are making progress in understanding each other. :-) Let me get into some details, where the devil is!
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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. > Did you understand my argument that we can only use the notion of a single computational space if we wish to consider a "timeless" version of Computation? My argument follows the way that the Wheeler-Dewitt equation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation>shows that if we consider the Universe in terms of a single QM system, its wavefunction will be "stationary". (Julian Barbour argues this well in his book <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_(book)>.) From there we notice that this wave function "lives" in a Hilbert space that has infinitely many degrees of freedom and so can be partitioned up an infinite numbers of ways as sets of tensor products of Hilbert spaces. (The evolution of the phase of the wavefunction<http://www.pitt.edu/~afreitas/phy1370/qm_time_tutorial.pdf>can be identified with the computational action.) If we consider only those subsets of Hilbert spaces that are of finite degree of freedom (to avoid the measure and basis problems), we find that it is possible to obtain a notion of time that we can match up to a thermodynamic 'arrow' of entropy. We need this! Our notion of computations need some relation to thermodynamics or else we are risking thinking of computations as actions that do not require any association to physical actions. (Bruno does exactly this risky act, IMHO.) The disassociation of computation with physical action may seem to be a desirable item but it has a very bad consequence: it makes the perception of physical actions to lack a ontological necessitation! Why even have the appearance of a physical world if it is unnecessary (and can be chopped out of our reasoning using Occam's Razor as we see done in UDA step 8)? The fact is that we do perceive a physical world and ourselves as "in it". To regard this as some "accident" or "illusion" is to throw away the very thing that is necessary to communicate between minds (that are defined computationally). Physical actions act as a means to partition up universal computations into separable entities and allows for the existence of local computations that are not universal that can perform tasks that would otherwise require too many resources to implement. There is a question that I throw at believers in the concept of reincarnation of a single Soul: Why is are multiple bodies necessary to the Soul? My tentative answer is: A body is the means by which one aspect of the Soul interacts with another and thus the Soul can evolve. To recap, I think that it is a mistake to assume that there is only a single computation going on. Single computations (ala a Universal Turing Machine, Lambda Calculus, Combinators, etc.) face insolvable problems when it comes to Concurrency<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)>. Using multiple, separable and distributed computations and logics that do not force ACID <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACID> absolutely are a solution. > > 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. >> >> >> >> >> The perceptions of individual organisms are just subsets of the overall >> universal computation. They have nothing to do with the fact that the whole >> universe is being actively computed. >> >> >> Sure, it is being computed piece-wise by all of its participants. There >> is not need to propose a separate computational space, until we get into >> specifics of physics. A "mind" for this simplistic toy model of what I >> advocate, is the computation and involves self-modeling at some level. >> Self-modeling need not be complete self-simulation, it only need to compute >> the relative position of the fingers and toes, for example. >> >> >> >> >> Edgar >> >> >> On Tuesday, Jan >> >> ... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
