Stephen, A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later after I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of your points.
You say "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." By "timeless special case" it seems like you are implying the UDA is not an ACTUAL case describing a reality that we agree necessarily must move. So it seems like you are saying that though the UDA might somehow shed some light on reality it is not actually describing reality as it actually is. Is that correct? Another problem with the UDA is I see no way a Platonia consisting of pure arithmetic can possible know how to actually compute what is actually occurring in the universe. How does pure static arithmetic truth know anything about what is actually happening where and how to compute which particles are interacting with which particles in what ways? I see no way that works at all. Can we agree on something like "Bruno's UDA is not an applicable description of a reality we agree actually moves, that actually includes the notion of 'becoming'? Second point in this post is I AGREE with you that "it is a mistake to assume that there is only a single computation going on." for a number of reasons. I've never claimed that. Sorry if that wasn't clear before. I think the most reasonable model is a single computational REALITY (not a single computation) that contains myriads of computations each computing the current state of reality in computational interaction with its information environment (environment in a logical sense, not a dimensional or spatial sense). This model avoids your concurrency problem, and a single computational reality allows computational continuity and consistency across the entire computational universe (again a logical, not physical dimensional spatial universe). Can we agree on something like "There is a single computational reality which includes myriads of ongoing computations which together continually compute the current state of the universe"? Edgar On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:17:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > 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? > > > <div > ... -- 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.
