On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and
observers.
In which theory?
In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the
"actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of
emptiness.
In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0),
s(s(0))), ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient
fiction to sum up infinities of arithmetical relation below our
substitution level, making the sharing of our most probable
computations sharable.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually
observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In
fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or
energy, they are never observations of empty space itself.
Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can
observe is particulate interactions which have what we call
dimensional relationships mandated by conservation laws.
But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR,
Define "occur".
and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion
of space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to
EMERGE from particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as
something they occur within.
So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules
imposed by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions.
OK.
It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.
Now that looks like computationalism, except you still did not say if
you use "computational" in the standrad sense of Turing, Post, Church,
Kleene, or ... in which sense?
If you use it in the standard sense, automatically you assume some
amount of arithmetical realism, and you get the "ontology" on a
plateau, as the sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic (a very tiny part
of the whole arithmetical reality) provides a computational space.
Of course, that arithmetical reality has nothing to do with time,
space, and matter a priori, and is of the type "platonic out of time
immaterial ideas", but with comp this structure admits a description
in terms of "block universal machine landscape".
This again is another strong indication that everything really
occurs at the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract
information in a logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality
and prior to physicality,
It it is prior physicality, it is prior to time.
and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these
computations rather than a pre-existing background to them...
Dimensionality, and time.
Those things does not occur, they are only interpreted as such by the
universal numbers.
Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM
information computations
if only we could knew what you mean by that.
encoding particulate interactions we have the key to resolving all
quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the source of
Quantum randomness.
You are quick, but computationalism indeed solves QM paradoxes, in the
Everett "multi" way, as far as it extends Everett properly on
arithmetic, and this is testable, and already partially tested.
But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they
afraid to tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this
one and that would be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if
anyone dares take up the challenge!
:-)
It is very promising, but you fail to convince me on your p-time idea,
and I am waiting for your explanation on what you mean by
"computation", and eventually how you relate the mind reality and the
observable reality.
But, first of all, what do you mean by "computation", and what are you
assuming for that explanation or definition.
The standard notion is arithmetical, accepting Church thesis, and can
be defined using only "0", "s", "+", "*" and the logical symbol with
"(" and ")".
Actually a unique diophantine polynomial of degree 4 is enough, by the
long work of Hilary Putnam, Martin Davis, Julia Robinson, Youri
Matiyasevich, and Peter Jones.
Bruno
Edgar
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
