Craig,
Well again, since you have such an anthropomorphized view of reality in
which everything in the universe seems to be modeled on human functioning,
I don't see any meaningful way we can discuss these issues....
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:29:14 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:46:47 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Unless consistency itself is local. We see this when we wake up from
> dreams. It is shockingly easy for our minds to adopt dream surreality as
> logical and consistent.
>
>
>> This is where the math comes from. If a computational universe exists,
>> and ours does, it must be structured logico-mathematically.
>>
>
> That doesn't mean that logico-mathematical structure itself must be
> primitive, only that the sensory modes which we use to address universal
> conditions use logical and mathematical methods of representation. The
> presence of sense itself, however, and the capacity for sense to be
> channeled into different modes in the first place, is not proscribed by
> logic or mathematics, nor can it be explained adequately (only as a
> skeletal reflection).
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> But R-math, and 'existence' require an even more fundamental capacity to
> appreciate and participate in what would later be partially abstracted as
> R-math, which would itself be partially abstracted as H-math.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> If the universe could be reduced to the minimum that is necessary to
> compute, then consciousness would not serve any function. Since the whole
> point of reducing the real universe to a computation is to pursue the
> supremacy of function, we have to decide whether computationalism is wrong
> or whether we are wrong for thinking that there is any such thing as
> conscious experience.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> If information needs a substrate, then it is the substrate which is
> actually what the universe is made of. I disagree that it is "simply"
> anything, and would say that it is not non-dimensional but
> trans-dimensional, as by definition it must include all opportunities to
> discern dimension. This foundation, which I call sense, I suggest is the
> presence not just of reality, but fantasy as well, and not just ontological
> energy, but the sole meta-ontological capacity - the primordial identity of
> pansentivity.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I agree that the wave vs water is a fair metaphor for information vs
> sense, but I would say the opposite. Without exception everything is sense
> only. Information is only the refreshment of sense, and it is through
> information that sense is constantly changing. Besides being pure and clear
> like water, sense is also timeless, so that it is full of fish eating each
> other from the past and the hypothetical futures.
>
>
>> It is only abstract computationally interacting forms that continually
>> compute the current information state of the universe.
>>
>
> Do computational forms really interact with each other, or do we invest
> their simple inertia with the pathetic fallacy?
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Most of my life contains no meaningful information. It is all sensory
> interactions. It is not just about about doing and knowing, but feeling and
> appreciating.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Who said the important part of the universe is observable? The importance
> of our lives is that it is liveable.
>
> Craig
>
>
>>
>> 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.
