Concerning comp, the most constructive suggestion I can give you is that you read Bruno's papers and work through his detailed arguments. You will find him very patient in answering any questions. I don't see myself as a "defender" of his ideas, but I have found (over many years, I should say) that carefully reflecting on them - which, speaking as someone who has worked professionally with computers for most of my life, had struck me at first as just "obviously wrong" - has in practice given me pause to reconsider whatever certainties I may originally have had concerning what might be "real", "actual" or "obvious".
David On 31 Jan 2014 02:16, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > OK, if there IS a way that Bruno's comp produces the fine tuning AND > actual happening then explain what it is. You can't claim there is a way > without explaining what it is. > > If you can't then I repeat my assertion that there is absolutely no way it > does, and that assertion is convincing... > > How does the fine tuning and the actual state of the observed universe > emerge from Bruno's comp, from pure static arithmetic? > > How does actual movement emerge from Bruno's comp, from pure static > arithmetic? > > If you can't explain it your statements are just statements of faith... > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:54:07 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >> You may consider that repeated assertions of "there is absolutely no way" >> constitute a carefully reasoned argument, but I'm afraid I do not. >> >> David >> On 30 Jan 2014 16:18, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> Boy, O Boy! >>> >>> You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused me of >>> not providing! >>> >>> Sorry for trying to help! >>> :-) >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >>>> >>>> On 30 January 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> In my view the whole UD can be as logically consistent as it wants to >>>>> be but still has no connection with the actual observable reality of our >>>>> universe... >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm afraid I don't seem to share your enviable certainty on the range >>>> of possibilities that could account for "the actual observable reality of >>>> our universe". Some carefully reasoned argument that doesn't beg the most >>>> crucial questions might help. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> -- > 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. > -- 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.
