On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:14:56 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> 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....
>
I could say that your view is merely mechanemorphized, in which everything
in the universe seems to be realized in the absence of direct experience.
My view is intentionally designed to recognize that these two extremes
define the continuum of sense, which, although is ultimately slightly more
anthropomorphic than mechanemorphic, it has nothing to do with human
experience in particular. It is 'reality' which is anthropomorphized - I
submit that the foundation of the universe transcends realism.
Thanks,
Craig
> 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.
