Dear Edgar,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > Umm, sorta. I have philosophical problems with the notion of "reality" as it is commonly used. I have my own definition:* A reality is that which is incontrovertible for some collection of mutually communicating observers*. In other words, there is no such thing as a reality independent of observation. Such a concept would be, logically, unobservable, and thus at best a figment of our imagination, but as such I can work with the concept. I come at these things as a student of philosophy, learning on my own outside of academic settings. I have found problems in almost every ontology going all the way back to the pre-socratics. My eyes where opened when I read a paper by a computer scientist named Vaughan Pratt that offered a neat way of solving the mind-body problem, but it required a totally different way of thinking. > > 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. > Platonia is like a Ideal case, where all imperfections (imagined) vanish all all that remains is Perfection. Sadly, it was assumed that change was an imperfection. Time then becomes a illusion to be "explained away" for those that buy into that type of thinking. I found the work of Hitoshi Kitada that offered a solution to the problem of time in physics and I have been working to dovetail these two thesis together ever since. > > 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'? > All Becoming is represented (Represented!) as the natural ordering of the Integers in Bruno's thesis. This would explain the ordering of events that we associate with Time but it completely ignores the "flow" of time. This follows from the previously described ontological idea that change is something that is "imperfect". > > 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. > OK. > > 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). > You need to figure out a more detailed explanation. There are many explanations of Reality in competition with yours. You have to give some justification as to why yours should be considered more than others. Details help. > > 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). > I have not seen any details as to how the concurrency problem is avoided! It is not a trivial problem. The best one that I have seen, that can be compared to yours, is Leibniz' monadology. It has a fatal flaw: Its Pre-established Harmony concept requires an eternal computation to occur prior to the creating of the monads. Obviously that is impossible. A solution is for the computations to run concurrently: the physical systems, in a literal sense, are the computations of themselves as they evolve and interact. No need for a separate realm to exist in addition to this one. Things get complicated when we shift to take Relativity and QM into account. As I have mentioned previously, QM requires a separate domain that can be used as a computational domain, but it has a Scylla of constraints to be navigated. > > 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"? > Yes. It is the evolution of the wavefunctions of the physical systems. > > 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]> 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 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.
