Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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. > good! > > 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? > No, the UDA serves a good purpose to show that there is some ontological merit in the idea that Numbers can serve as a fundamental ground for Mind as a Platonic Form. It is the "timeless" spacial case. > > 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? > Yes, I denote this as "Becoming is Fundamental". > > 4. Do you agree that implies some notion of time flowing? > The imposition of finite measures onto the Becoming is the creation of a clock. Clocks are strictly "local" entities. It has been repeatedly proven that a single clock cannot order all possible events of space-time. Thus a singular "Present Moment" is an oxymoron, a self-contradicting idea. > > 5. Do you agree that reality is fundamentally computational? > Yes, with caveats. > That in some sense or other the universe is the result of a computational > process? > Yes, since I define a computation generally as "any transformation of Information". > 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. > Sure, but we have to wrestle with the "initial conditions" Problem! If we assume multiple computations that "compete" for "reality", we can start with the set of all possible computations and end up with a disjoint collection of "realities", each semi-complete and self-consistent (up to some finite measure). > > 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... > Sure! Please see my other post where I get into more devilish details. > > 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 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.
