Russell, No, I have not painted myself into any corner.
Second, I reject all the labels you use, and most of the terminology which is loaded with other labels. Labels are usually excuses not to consider the actual theory, and not to have to actually think.... You are trying to view my theory in terms of Bruno's which won't work because Bruno's theory is not relevant to mine. It's really amazing how so many loyal devotees here think if anything conflicts with Bruno's comp it has to be wrong, when Bruno's comp is just a theory which has little or nothing to do with reality in any demonstrable sense. It's amazing how people here think what might be a sound theory about some abstruse nether regions of H-math must necessarily be applicable to actual reality. The way to understand what is going on with actual reality is to OBSERVE it, not to slap some mathematical proof on top of it and claim reality must conform to it. It's reality itself that decides what theory it does or doesn't conform to, not some ivory tower H-mathematician.... But I realize it's very difficult to alter faith based belief systems.... Edgar On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:19:20 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 04:57:04PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > Thus the notion of an external reality IS consistent with it being a > > computational reality, because it leads directly to it. > > > > Edgar > > > > So you have just painted yourself into a Platonic idealist corner. The > only ontological properties of relevance is that of universal > computation. We could just as easily be running on the stuff of Peano > arithmetic (as Bruno suggests) as on Babbage's analytic engine in some > fantastic Steampunk scenario. Furthermore, since universal dovetailers > will dominate the measure of conscious programs, we will observe an > FPI-like screen over the activities of those programs - we must be > staring at the "Nothing" I talk about in my book. This is just a > consequence of the UDA. > > But the "Nothing" is not an ontology - it is a really a statement that > ontology is unknowable, and not even really meaningful in any sense. > > Cheers > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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.
