Dear Edgar, Ah, we disagree on a few more things...
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Stephen, > > Agreed. I suspect I'd be literally burned at the stake for my scientific > heresies by some here if they had a chance! > > But I find it strange you'd say "that so far I have not seen anything > original in your proposal". Everyone else here condemns me because my ideas > are TOO original! My whole book, some of the ideas from which I've > presented here, is literally overflowing with ideas original to me you > simply won't find anywhere else.... > OK. > > But be that as it may.... > > I certainly do agree that there was originally a formless void that > contained the unactualized possibilities of all possible actualities. > That's what I call either 'ontological energy' or 'the generalized quantum > vacuum'. It's the only view that makes sense to me and is treated > extensively in book... > Is there any relation between the Computational space and the "generalized quantum vacuum"- to use your concepts and not mine? I do not relate the Void to any physical property. It is an ontological idea, metaphysical even. It is the neutral 'ground' prior to all distinctionings and has no particular properties. All things emerge as dual pairs from it. > > In this view the big bang was an actualization event rather than a > creation event. > I think that the big bang is a reification of a religious creation myth. The appearance of a universe of stuff that is expanding and the inference that at some epoch it was all concentrated into a point is an observation, it is not necessarily what is "out there" independent of observers. The notion of an "objective reality" separate from observation is, IMHO, a figment of our imaginations. > > As to block time there are all sorts of demonstrations it's total BS. Take > for example its origin. How could an entire fixed completely deterministic > structure containing the entire history of the universe from big bang to > final end come into being instantly somehow out of time? The block universe > assumes that causality is an illusion since the block universe came into > existence all at once out of time. So what CAUSED the block universe if > causality doesn't exist? What process could have created it in the first > place. Whatever process it was we must postulate it was OUTSIDE the > universe which is a hugely unparsimonious and unwarranted assumption, and > that in that outside both causality and time somehow existed.... > It seems that many just assume that it, the universe of stuff - planets, trees, galaxies, EMF, etc.- exists and don't ask how it got to be -other than some version of another of a just so story that we have learned to dress up with fancy mathematics. Many people buy into the idea that what we observe is what "is" somehow and ignore the mountains of evidence and logical that would tell them otherwise. I don't. I claim that what we observe, that content of our 1st person experience, can be described as a simulation created by our minds running on our brains and is not what is "out there" at all. > > On the other hand if its frames were created sequentially that is no > longer a block universe, but a universe in which time flows and causality > produces subsequent frames from previous ones, which is of course the > actual universe we observe... > We cannot escape from the experience of a flow of events. How that comes to pass is a mystery. The best we can do, IMHO, is to invent explanations that are capable of predicting some unknown, test for such, find errors, improve our explanations, rinse and repeat. There is no substitute for 'science'. > > Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind > blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the > ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for > laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously. > But people actually do, very smart people too! > > Edgar > > > > > > > On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:58:06 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear Edgar, >> >> One has to be willing to face the flames, sometimes literally, when >> promoting a new idea. I do appreciate your concepts and willingness to >> defend them. I must say that so far I have not seen anything original in >> your proposal that really sparks my attention. >> I do wish you would consider the argument that I wrote up about how we >> must use a plurality of "computational spaces" and not a single >> computational space -dimensional or otherwise, if we are going to argue >> that computation generates the physical world. As to my argument against >> block time, it, IMHO, boils down to an attempt to argue that our perception >> of change is an illusion and offers no explanation for the persistence of >> the illusion in the face of physical facts. This concept is not new, it is >> thousand of years old, going all the way back to Parmenides- that can be >> documented. >> I favor Hericlutus' vision that Becoming is ontologically fundamental >> and that all things in Reality come in dual pairs. This gives us a way to >> think of the ontological foundation of existence as a property neutral Void >> - the one thing that Democritus got right. The Void is not to be considered >> to be static and timeless, but as the complete collection of all possible >> forms of becoming, each of which is a Process that has, in most cases, >> products. (To use the languaging of Gordon >> Pask<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask> >> ) >> Out of this Void emerges "atoms" (totally disconnected topological >> spaces) and logical structures (the Stone dual of the spaces) that have >> "arrows of evolution" that point in opposite directions (as discussed by >> Vaughan >> Pratt in his proposed solution to the mind-body >> problem<http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf>). >> >> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,s >> ... > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 stephe...@provensecure.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
