On 25 Jan 2014, at 18:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Once again a summary of my computational universe:
I did not ask you a summary of your theory. Just a definition of
computation, or of your computational space notion, as what I get is
until now seeming inconsistent.
The fundamental level of reality consists of pure abstract
computationally evolving information in the LOGICAL (not physical,
not dimensional) space or presence of reality.
But I don't know what is reality.
"Logical" is not enough ton have computations. You need arithmetic (or
Turing equivalent).
"pure abstract computationally evolving information" is too vague.
"Logical space" does not make sense (fuzzy metaphore)
"presence of reality"? Too vague.
What exists here is NOT static arithmetic truth. What exists here is
the ACTUAL computations (and nothing else) necessary and sufficient
to compute the current state of the universe as science observes it
and confirms it. This occurs as myriads of computations in
interaction with each other.
Science does not observe a universe, nor can we even confirm such idea.
That there is a physical universe is a theological assumption. A
fertile one, but it has limit in the computational theory of mind,
which eventually has to drop that assumption.
This is a dynamic active process which occurs in a common present
moment.
You have not replied convincingly to those who explained that "common
present moment" is either quite fuzzy or even meaningless (both in SR,
QM and just comp).
How do you extract that dynamic? Ah, I remember that you take some
notion of time as primitive, but this is incompatible with the
assumption of a computational mind, apparently implied by a
computational reality.
This present moment is NOT the same as clock time.
OK. But "present moment" is not a physical thing at all. It is an
experience of some possible consciousness of some relative machine/
number.
Clock time and all the other measurable observable information
states of the universe are the RESULTS of these fundamental
computations
In some sense. I can be OK with this.
which occur in the present moment of p-time.
But that makes no sense to me.
If clock time is the RESULTS of computations those computations MUST
occur in some other type of time.
You need just elementary arithmetic. 0, 1, 2, 3, ... That is time
enough to get all notions of time.
Then with the + and * laws, you get the observers and we can already
asks them "how do you do?".
That is the present moment.
This process is entirely independent of human observation. It is not
a matter of perspective, though obviously every extant observe will
have its own perspective on and internal mental model of this
process. And observers will interpret this perspective as the
familiar physical dimensional world.
All observers are sub-programs in this single computational reality
which themselves continually computationally interact with the
computations of their environments.
You can't attach consciousness to a program, except by 3-I politeness.
The 1-I itself relies on infinitely many programs, and cannot know
which one. Only which most probable one.
The entire universe consists ONLY of these active computations,
Computations are always active.
consists ONLY of information computationally evolving.
It relies on this + The FPI (first person indeterminacy).
The apparently physical classical world is how observers INTERPRET
or model or simulate this information reality internally in their
minds. They have evolved to do this to make it easier to compute
their functioning and survival....
Thus the actual reality is not physical, dimensional or material, it
consists only of actively computationally evolving pure abstract
information in a logical space ONLY.
"logical space"? which one. Why not arithmetical reality, as this
makes your statements coherent with the standard definition of
computations. But then you get the infinite redundancy, and the
physical has to emerge from a statistics on all (relative) computations.
Hope that makes it clearer....
It is unclear, but from what I might understand, it can't work. You
can't assume a present moment. If your comp has any relation with
computer, you need to explain the present moment or its appearance
from less. The same for SR and the quantum. You can't assume them.
That is the UDA point, so it would clarify the talk if you could say
at which step your theory departs from it.
Bruno
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.
