On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:51:26 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational
> OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually compute
> the evolving state of the universe. This guarantees my definition is
> CORRECT, and it becomes a matter of determining what the actual necessary
> computations are. And I've given a number of thoughts about that...
>
Which is superior at the same time you state it. But then you carry on as
you were before, defining all reality as this perfect sphere of
consistency. Hollow it out with a plastic toothpick. Carefully remove a
moist orb of p-time prepare earlier on the clay wheel. Nature on the table
wishing she was under it instead of your knife.
Well meant silliness mainly - but seriously, howtare you ASKING Nature in a
flow chart like that?
> You define your comp THEORETICALLY and then insist that nature must
> conform to your theory, apparently without even asking nature if it does or
> not because you never say anything about physics. You only discuss math and
> philosophy....
>
Gotta keep the p-time sequence straight Edgar. How old is a handsome rascal
likT you? The pic's 10+ years ago, so I'd say early 70's. And when did your
philosophical journey begin? While still a minor - a boy prodigy no less.
And what are the first three insights that infected you -confidence so
positively, commitment too. Life long dedication true to say. After all
here you are 60 odd years later.
Step three of the thousand mile journey was p-time wasn't it. So 60 year
p-time, p now for Platinum too. Just a boy - gifted mind you - a prodigy -
but p-time was given birth to by....a boy. The other two where
synrchronization to the power of c, and the perfect logical structure.
Point of all this being. Was there a definition of computation back then?
And also....hand on heart can you really lay claim to 'asking' Nature how
she does tthing? You might have asked but it's what you are willing to do
to get Nature's answer that does all the heavy lifting.
I don't know. You had these insights right at the start and you've kept
them all the way through 60 years of apparently listening seriously for an
answer. I suppose it's a rare case of two great minds, you and Nature,
thinking alike.
Don't worry by the way I spread the slime around and don't complain when
slime comes around. The above kind of reminds me of David Deutsch's even
greater fortune. Everything he already thought was basically true turned
out true. Not just scientific hunches; EVERYTHING. Every narrative, every
prejudice about the West. All the philosophical stuff. All the self serving
stuff too. Everything right, and being a rational UKC, with memes in rude
health, David Deutsch saw no problem in that, saw no need to reflect extra
careful, or necessarily at all. IMHO.
>
>
> This is a big big difference.
>
Oh contraire olde sausage; no difference at all
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
