Chris,
For a computational universe to even exist it must be consistently
logico-mathematical. If it weren't the inconsistencies would cause it to
tear itself apart and thus it couldn't exist. This is where the math comes
from. If a computational universe exists, and ours does, it must be
structured logico-mathematically. But this does NOT men all human H-math
exists, it just means that a fundamental logico-mathematical structure I
call R-math (reality math) exists. Just the minimum that is necessary to
compute the actual universe is all that is needed. All the rest is H-math,
and we can't assume that H-math is part of R-math. In fact it is provably
different. The big mistake Bruno makes is assuming that H-math is R-math.
It isn't. H-math is a generalized approximation of R-math, which is then
vastly extended far beyond R-math.
In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information is
not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of reality,
Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what is
interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their
personal simulations of reality.
Yet this information does need a substrate in which to manifest. This
substrate is simply the existence space of reality itself, what I call
ontological energy, which is not a physical energy, but simply the locus
(non-dimensional) of the presence of reality, the living happening of
being.
A good way to visualize this is that ontological energy is like a perfectly
still sea of water, and the various waves, currents, eddies etc. that can
arise within the water are all the forms of information that make up and
compute the universe. They have no substance of their own other than the
underlying water (existence) in which they arise.
And of course the nature of water determines what forms can arise within it
just as the underlying nature of existence determines the types of
information forms that can arise within our universe.
In this theory EVERYTHING without exception is information only. It is only
abstract computationally interacting forms that continually compute the
current information state of the universe.
In fact, if one observes reality with trained eyes, one can actually
directly observe that the only thing out there is just various kinds of
information. After all ANYTHING that is observable is by definition
information..... Only information is observable, ONLY information exists...
It is the fact that this information exists in the actual realm of
existence that makes it real and actual and enables it to compute a real
information universe.
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 2:20:23 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Personally the notion that all that exists is comp & information – encoded
> on what though? – Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some
> cling to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very
> real. However when you get right down to it all we have is measured values
> of things and meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated
> in the experience of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in
> the end all that we can say for sure about anything is the value it has
> when we measure it.
>
> I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark’s book – I read a bit
> each day when I break for lunch – so this is partly influencing this train
> of thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how
> in a sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every
> possible outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it
> that I had never read before.
>
> Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea
> of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an
> emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of
> parallelism and vastness of scale of the information system in which it is
> self-emergent.
>
>
>
> Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every
> information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a
> substrate medium upon which to encode itself; information seems describable
> in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on some substrate system. I
> would like to avoid the infinite regression of stopping at the point of
> describing systems as existing upon other and requiring other substrate
> systems that themselves require substrates themselves described as
> information again requiring some substrate… repeat eternally.
>
> It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a
> very simple substrate system given enough replication of elements… a simple
> binary state machine could suffice, given enough bits.
>
> But what are the bits encoded on?
>
>
>
> At some point reductionism can no longer reduce…. And then we are back to
> where we first started…. How did that arise or come to be? If for example
> we say that math is reducible to logic or set theory then what of sets and
> the various set operations? What of enumerations? These simplest of simple
> things. Can you reduce the {} null set?
>
> What does it arise from?
>
>
>
> Perhaps to try to find some fundamental something upon which everything
> else is tapestried over is unanswerable; it is something that keeps coming
> back to itch my ears.
>
>
>
> Am interested in hearing what some of you may have to say about this
> universe of the most simple things: numbers, sets; and the very simple base
> operators -- {+-*/=!^()} etc. that operate on these enumerable entities and
> the logical operators {and, or, xor}
>
>
>
> What is a number? Doesn’t it only have meaning in the sense that it is
> greater than the number that is less than it & less than the one greater
> than it? Does the concept of a number actually even have any meaning
> outside of being thought of as being a member of the enumerable set
> {1,2,3,4,… n}? In other words ‘3’ by itself means nothing and is
> nothing; it only means something in terms of the set of numbers as in:
> 2<3<4… <n-1<n
>
>
>
> And what of the simple operators. When we say a + b = c we are dealing
> with two separate kinds of entities, with one {a,b,c} being quantities or
> values and {+,=} being the two operators that relate the three values in
> this simple equation.
>
>
>
> The enumerable set is not enough by itself. So even if one could explain
> the enumerable set in some manner the manner in which the simple operators
> come to be is not clear to me. How do the addition, assignment and other
> basic operators arise? This extends similarly to the basic logic operators:
> and, or, xor, not – as well.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
--
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.
