Dear Edgar,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Stephen, > > To combine my responses to several of your posts... > > I sort of agree with your notion of multiple realities but I would argue > these are not the fundamental reality and we must assume a more fundamental > reality with the same laws of nature, rules of logic, and fine tuning, etc. > that these all occur within. Without that it seems to me there could be no > possible communication between your realities and that they would not even > be part of the same universe. > I wonder if you understood the implications of what I wrote previously?! I gave the definition of "reality" that I use and have repeatedly stated that the notion of a reality independent of observers is incoherent to me. I also gave a tiny sketch of how I think of communication, computation and information; there is an interlocking reasoning to those definitions and the ways that I am using them. The idea of "he same laws of nature, rules of logic, and fine tuning, etc." all come from the traditional way of thinking physics. I find that method to be faulty and am attempting to find a better alternative. > > A theory of completely separate realities not part of a single common > reality cannot explain the fact that the laws of physics, the laws of > logic, and the fine tuning, the laws of chemistry, the current state of the > universe, are the same for all observers. There must be a common reality > that includes these facts and the observers and their separate realities in > which those observers exist for that to be true. > If we start with a generic and non-anthropocentric notion of observers and then consider what would they have as a common experience, we find that we can obtain a common physics and world. We do not need to start with a World that is out there and has innate properties. An absolute Reality would be one that is identical to Democritus' Void, having no particular properties at all (key word: Particular). > > My definition of reality is simple and very general and takes these points > into consideration: > > Reality includes everything that exists, without exception, whatever that > may be. The multiple realities you are proposing are what I would describe > as the multiple internal mental simulations of my single reality in which > all observers must exist to be in the same universe and communicate with > each other. > Does your version of* reality* (I will denote it as reality_E) come ready baked with properties? > > Each of these observers will of course have his own separate reality VIEW > and internal MODEL of that single reality, but these must necessarily be > part of a single universe to make sense of things. > Do your observers have experiences of reality_E that map one-to-one and onto the properties of reality_E? I do not buy that, my reasoning follows Donald Hoffman's arguments. > > > On another point you claim that "computations are intractable". That may > be true in some general human math sense but with complete certainty the > computations that compute the current state of the universe are NOT > intractable because they actually occur. > Some computations are intractable<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intractability_(complexity)#Intractability>, yes. Those that are intractable, have that because of a reason. This wiki article is good. Read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory One of the best discussions that I have found about intractability and physics is an article by Stephen Wolfram. I invite you to read it carefully: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/academic/undecidability-intractability-theoretical-physics.pdf It is from this article and bits and pieces of ideas from many others that I was lead to consider that our currently popular definitions of information and computation are far too narrow and restricted. It is as if we are stuck in a box and can only see out through a tiny slit and can never imagine that we are actually stuck in a box in our thinking. > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:17:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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. >> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-f >> ... > > -- > 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.
