On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:13:29 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Craig, > > Well first I'm not so optimistic as you that some here don't harbor some > pretty ridiculous ideas including that there was no reality before humans. > > Second, there is a view I present in my book that resolves both > perspectives. If we hold the view that everything is just computationally > interacting information at the fundamental level, then it is reasonable to > define any change in that information as a generic type of experience I > call Xperience. > > In this model then, everything that happens is an Xperience, and every > information form can be considered a generic observer, whose computational > change amounts to an observation. >
Except that information does not seem to be an observer. Signs don't read. Rules don't play games. Languages don't speak. I think it makes more sense the other way around. Forms and information must first be experiences. The idea of things 'happening' of 'change' requires an a priori expectation of linear time, of memory, persistence, comparison, etc...all kinds of sensible conditions which must underpin the possibility of any information at all. Craig > > So in this sense we get observers from the very beginning and don't have > to wait for human observers to appear. I don't see how this wouldn't be > consistent with the Block and Bruno universes 1p views of observable > reality though I have no desire to explore that avenue.... > > Note that this model is also consistent with the transition from the old > erroneous view that human observation 'caused' wavefunction 'collapse' to > the modern view of decoherence, in which we can say that it is the > interactions of two particles themselves which supply the generic > 'observation' of each other to produce some exact dimensional 'measurement' > in each other's frames. > > Edgar > > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:04:24 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:51:18 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> 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 don't think anyone here (or anyone that I have ever spoken with, >> really) thinks that there was no reality before humans. Idealism, or the >> kind of Pansensitivity that I suggest need not have anything to do with >> human beings at all. The issue is whether anything can simply 'exist' >> independently of all possibility of experience. I think that if that were >> possible, then any form of perception or experience would be redundant and >> implausible. More importantly though, in what way would a phenomenon which >> has no possibility of detection be different than nothingness? We can >> create experiences that remind us of matter and energy just by imagining >> them, and we can derive some pleasure and meaning from that independently >> of any functional consideration, but what reason would the laws of physics >> or arithmetic have to accidentally make sensation and participation? >> >> >>> >>> 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] >>>> 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.
