Dear Edgar, I have a different definition of "reality": what which is incontrovertible<https://www.google.com/search?q=incontravertible&oq=incontravertible&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=incontrovertible&spell=1>for some collection of mutually communicating observers. I find other definition of the word to be incoherent. Given that, let me respond.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, > > I think we need to back up and explore the root of this apparent > disagreement. > > If I understand you you claim there are multiple computational realities > while I claim there is only one. Is that correct? > Using the definition above, yes, but I suspect that my take on this question is wildly at odds with yours. My claim is that if one tries to mash all of the content of the observations of all possible observers into a single computation one would get something that is indistinguishable from noise, hardly a computation in the usual sense. What is my reasoning? Consider a pair of observers, Alice and Bob, in orbit of the Earth, they communicate via a satellite system what has a very narrow channel. Each observes a different side of the Earth. The content of their observations is almost mutually exclusive. To define an observer, Karl, that has observations that is equivalent to a combination of those of Alice and Bob one would have a problem: How does one combine observational content that is mutually exclusive? Well, one could toss out as incoherent noise every bit of content from the A+B content and keep what is left: that which is mutually consistent and indisputable. Do this for an unlimited number of observers and one finds that there is no way for Karl's content to be anything except noise! The only way to have a collection of observers that have observational content that is mostly coherent (not noise) is for them to be very close to each other and not observing the equivalent of opposite sides of a sphere; they have to be something like the points on a flat surface... I am trying to explain an idea from topology in conversational English in order to make an argument: it is not possible for arbitrarily many observers that are observing arbitrarily many things to have content that can be combined into that of a single observer. The reason is that a single surface can not completely cover a sphere: there will be gaps. Since we are thinking of the content of observations to be the product of computations or computations itself, the inability to arbitrarily combine many observations into one applies to computations as well: It cannot be done. Thus it is not possible for there to be a single computation that generates or "is" all observational content. > If so then please answer a few questions so I can understand your position > better. > > 1. What defines or separates one of these realities from another? > Mutual incompatibility. A reality is "stitched together" by logical consistency of the observers of that reality. Reality is observations. Can a reality exist that does not contain any observers? No! > > 2. Don't they all exist somehow as parts of some super-reality? It seems > that whatever criteria are used to distinguish them must be a criterion > that exists in some reality that encompasses them all? > No! Not possible as I have explained above. The only way to have a single "reality" for arbitrary many observers is for that reality to be formless and void. (That is what I take as the ontological neutral ground, by the way.) > > 3. How do these separate computational realities communicate with each > other as they must if they are to computationally interact and communicate? > If they can't then they would seem to be entirely separate universes.... > I have a weird theory of communication when considering computational concepts. It is based on the concept of bisimulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisimulation "In theoretical computer science<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_computer_science> a *bisimulation* is a binary relation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation> between state transition systems<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_transition_system>, associating systems which behave in the same way in the sense that one system simulates the other and vice-versa. Intuitively two systems are *bisimilar* if they match each other's moves. In this sense, each of the systems cannot be distinguished from the other by an observer. " I observe you and you observe me. Does your observations of me include your observation of yourself? I submit that you do not "observe" me or yourself. You observe a simulation of me and yourself. Does that make sense? Does a third party "witness" observe our observations or merely its own simulation of you and me? > > 4. Do these separate realities correspond to separate observers? > Yes, and combinations of realities follow the same rules as combinations of observers. For every observer there is at least one reality and for every reality there is at least one observer. A default reality is one whose content is random noise or the equivalent. > > If so do you assume there is no actual reality outside the individual > world views of individual observers and that individual observers exist in > entirely separate realities? > No, realities can be combined subject to the rule of mutual consistency. (I do not use, for example, Leibniz' idea of monads here. I tried that out. It didn't work so well...) > That's enough questions to start with. Hopefully we can explore the > details of this disagreement to the extent we can figure some test to > resolve it. > Sure. > > Best, > Edgar > > > On Saturday, January 25, 2014 2:33:07 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear Edgar, >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Brent, >> >> I have answered this several times but apparently it didn't register. >> >> P-time is the time IN WHICH everything that can be measured is computed. >> >> >> Per observer (defined abstractly and not necessarily human)? A bundle of >> instruments and recording devices would be an observer... >> >> By the current popular definition of computation, most physical systems >> are know to be computationally intractable. How do you deal with that? >> >> >> >> Therefore one CAN NOT measure intervals of p-time because they are prior >> to measurability (at least so far as I can see). Thus when we try to >> measure time we automatically measure CLOCK TIME rather than p-time. >> >> >> CLOCK TIME = duration? >> >> >> >> >> Nevertheless, as I've also previously suggested several times, one should >> be able to calculate the span of p-time back to the big bang from the >> curvature of the universe (omega) since the radial time dimension of our >> 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe is the p-time dimension stretching >> from the present moment (of p-time) back to the big bang. >> >> >> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetic >> ... > > -- > 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.
