On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Bruno, and Craig, > > Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime. > In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to > compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as > 17 are not necessary for reality to compute the universe. I suspect what > reality does is more 1:1 comparisons. > > E.g. when reality makes a computation to conserve and redistribute > particle properties among the outgoing particles of a particle interaction, > it doesn't need to count up 17 of anything, it just has to know they are > all distributed which it can do with simple 1;1 comparisons. It can do that > by 1:1 comparisons, not by any notion of numbers such as 1, 2, or 17 much > less any notion of primes. >
I suspect that in this regard Bruno may have more insight, but superficially I agree with you. Just as an abacus can be used to perform H-Math functions, on a physical level, all that is happening is that beads are sliding to one side or another (R-Math?). I consider H-Math not to be limited to humans, but more along the lines of a Bruno-Platonic set of all possible groupings of quantitative patterns. As enormous as that UD is, it is still, in my view, only a language of theoretical relations, not a concrete presence in the universe. What I see with comp is that, if human quality of consciousness were a calendar, comp takes the R-Math of January and the H-Math of December and assumes that February through November will be filled in automatically. What I see instead is that February through November cannot be substituted with low level 1:1 comparisons or high level eternal schemas, but instead must be developed in real time through real experiences. There can be no skipping experiences, so that even a fish does not have the experience of a fish if it does not arise from a context of inheriting lifetimes from invertebrate ancestors. I suspect that these experiences are not available in any structures to be simulated or modeled. Craig > Ordinal and cardinal number, and all their properties such as odd, even or > prime are thus characteristic of human H-math, not of the actual R-math of > reality that actually computes the current state of the universe, at least > so far as I can see. > > Edgar > > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for >>> quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our >>> neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a >>> meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our >>> physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing >>> tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and >>> supporting our survival. >>> >>> >>> Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to >>> start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like >>> 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. >>> >> >> I agree that it is an important political consideration, but I don't >> think it is a scientific consideration. At one time the starting point >> statements that authorities agree with were found in the book of Genesis. >> >> >> >> The analogy does not work, because the statement that 17 is a prime >> number is everything but political. But if you want start a party on the >> idea that 17 is not prime, you are free to make it political. You will need >> propaganda, torture, terror, and many things like that to keep power, but >> then why not, we are used to this. >> >> My point was only that if you want to communicate something to others, >> you have to adopt a language they understand, and start your theory from >> statement on which they can agree "for the sake of the argument or not" >> (that's private for the others). >> >> If not, all what you do is already a sort of propaganda. I'm afraid. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> 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.
