On 21 Jan 2014, at 22:24, 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
I don't own the 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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
