Russell, But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is 1p perspectives of conscious human observers.
To me, that's just solipsism in new clothes. And it implies there was no reality before humans. I think the correct view is that reality is independent of human perception, that it being functioning quite fine for 13.7 billion years before humans came along. But that humans each have their own internal VIEWS or SIMULATIONS of reality, which they mistake for actual human independent reality. Bruno, and a few others seem to MISTAKE those internal views of reality for human independent reality itself. That's a fundamental and deadly mistake in trying to make sense of reality... Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Craig, > > > > I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his > > understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or > > perhaps just rigid. > > > > As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent > but > > that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental > structure > > of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or > logical > > proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the > > variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno > > doing that at all. > > The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the > assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be > implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality > (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a > simple consequence of the Church thesis. > > > > > There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there > is > > no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is > > apparently his all possible universes. > > > > He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of > > theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. > > > > It is not important for the UDA. But it is, nevertheless, not > inconsistent with the Anthropic Principle either. Bruno would say it > is necessary for the manifestation of other conciousnesses to us. I > reserve my judgement on this... > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]<javascript:> > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- 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.
