subject:"\"Re\\\: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality\""

Actually I can't be bothered asking Edgar the same questions again and
getting no answer again (or a non-answer like the one he just gave Chris,
while carefully ignoring me). If he wants to ignore my questions, I
shouldnt waste time asking. So I have deleted my post restating the
questions I asked before, and have zero expectation that the person Brent
said was courteous, but everyone else seems to think is a troll, will have
the intellectual honesty or pride in his own ideas to answer a few simple
questions about those ideas.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 17 January 2014 03:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called
> 'happening' drives it...
>
> That isn't an answer to *anything* I've asked. Naming something doesn't
explain what it is.
I thought you'd have enough pride in your own ideas, if nothing else, to at
least try to give a proper answer to the questions I asked,  but you have
simply chosen to ignore them.

Let me repeat them, in case you missed them, and see if you have the
intellectual honesty to at least attempt to explain yourself, for once.

*I would like to know what Edgar's answer is. Obviously Edgar's theory
doesn't use the UD, because he has clearly stated that he thinks comp is
false. He even started a thread called "Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)"
! *

*OK, I admit that going on past behaviour I shouldn't expect a sensible
answer from Edgar. I know I'm most likely to some snide comment telling me
it's too obvious to explain, or insinuating that I'm a moron for asking.
But even so, I think the polite and courteous thing to do is to keep asking
questions, and I  live in hope that I will get proper answers from Edgar,
and that eventually, if every step of his argument is clarified
sufficiently, it will either start making sense to me, or stop making sense
to him, as the case may be.*

*So, my original questions were, what is the nature of a world in which
everything is computational? For example, is it physical or abstract or
something else? (And if so, what?) Does it have physical computational
machinery of some sort (like CY compact manifolds), or if not, whatdoes it
have?*

*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *LizR

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com

*Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.

>>What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Edgar,

  How about this twist on your claim: Reality is isomorphic to the
computations and its dynamics (thermodynamics) drives it.


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called
> 'happening' drives it...
>
> Edgar
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *LizR
>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
>> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
>> reality
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
>> computations?
>>
>> What is doing the imagining?
>>
>> --
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Chris,

Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called 
'happening' drives it...

Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational 
> reality
>
>  
>
> On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen > 
> wrote:
>
> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
>
>  
>
> >>What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the 
> computations?
>
> What is doing the imagining?
>
> -- 
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 16 January 2014 13:10, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>>Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
>>
>
>  What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
> computations?
>
> Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it.
>

I would like to know what Edgar's answer is. Obviously Edgar's theory
doesn't use the UD, because he has clearly stated that he thinks comp is
false. He even started a thread called "Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)"
!

OK, I admit that going on past behaviour I shouldn't expect a sensible
answer from Edgar. I know I'm most likely to some snide comment telling me
it's too obvious to explain, or insinuating that I'm a moron for asking.
But even so, I think the polite and courteous thing to do is to keep asking
questions, and I  live in hope that I will get proper answers from Edgar,
and that eventually, if every step of his argument is clarified
sufficiently, it will either start making sense to me, or stop making sense
to him, as the case may be.

So, my original questions were, what is the nature of a world in which
everything is computational? For example, is it physical or abstract or
something else? (And if so, what?) Does it have physical computational
machinery of some sort (like CY compact manifolds), or if not, what
*does*it have?

All this (and probably a lot more) needs to be explained before one can
start to imagine a world in which "everything is computational".

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:10, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:

On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.

What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the  
computations?


Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it.


THe UD will emulate all mind states. This we can say (assuming comp).  
But he will never emulate the physical reality/world, a priori, unless  
the physical world is little, finite, essentially material or  
substantial, constitutes my only brain, ... which prevents me from  
"saying yes" to any doctor.


I don't know what is a world, to be honest.

Bruno




Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

There are an awful lot of hidden assumptions implied by that first explicit
assumption "imagine a world in which everything is computational".

I've asked for clarification from Edgar, but I won't hold my breath while I
wait.


On 16 January 2014 22:44, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum
> events more clearly and succinctly.
>
> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
>
>
>
> That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am computational,
> and thus comp is true, but comp entails the existence of many non
> computational things, so everything cannot be a computational things. You
> seem to ignore the FPI, and you seem to use implicitly some body/mind
> identify thesis which are not consistent with computationalism.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
> spacetime background does NOT exist.
>
> Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in
> a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum
> 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world.
>
> There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to
> understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about
> reality.
>
>  Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle
> properties in any particle interaction in comp space.
>
> The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of
> all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among
> the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.
>
> The results of such computational events is that the particle properties
> of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be
> to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing
> particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties
> conserved in that event.
>
> Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle
> properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In
> other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing
> particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be
> conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the
> conservation laws.
>
> Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates
> a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.
>
> Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The
> result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships
> which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional
> interrelations.
>
> Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously
> involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons
> impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous
> particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional
> interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical
> spacetime.
>
> He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually
> exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional
> relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of
> the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and
> manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar
> spacetime.
>
> But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually
> a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist.
> It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events
> or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it
> emerged.
>
>
> Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually
> unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every
> mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely
> independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked
> and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When
> that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved
> into a single spacetime common to all its elements.
>
> E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created
> their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their
> own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the
> conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human
> observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.
>
> However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and
> aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the
> laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned
> with that

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by  
quantum events more clearly and succinctly.


Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.



That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am  
computational, and thus comp is true, but comp entails the existence  
of many non computational things, so everything cannot be a  
computational things. You seem to ignore the FPI, and you seem to use  
implicitly some body/mind identify thesis which are not consistent  
with computationalism.


Bruno




In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing  
dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist.


Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the  
computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM,  
eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of  
quantum randomness in the world.


There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort  
to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense  
notions about reality.


 Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of  
particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space.


The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the  
amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and  
redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle  
interaction.


The results of such computational events is that the particle  
properties of all outgoing particles of every event are  
interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is  
called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are  
always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event.


Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional  
particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction  
events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between  
the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to  
be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They  
must be to satisfy the conservation laws.


Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a  
spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.


Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles.  
The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional  
interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold  
of dimensional interrelations.


Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is  
continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g.  
millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be  
that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast  
network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the  
human observer as a classical spacetime.


He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually  
exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with  
dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges,  
due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in  
aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the  
structure of our familiar spacetime.


But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is  
actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't  
actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of  
continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the  
computational reality from which it emerged.



Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model  
conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is  
that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events  
is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate  
space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through  
some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all  
alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime  
common to all its elements.


E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are  
created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other,  
but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have  
to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation  
is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame  
of the laboratory.


However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links  
and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of  
the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both  
particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the  
spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal  
and opposite to that of the first.


There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is  
no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin  
orientations of the particles exist in

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread LizR

On 16 January 2014 17:10, Chris de Morsella  wrote:
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
> reality
>
>
>
> On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
>
>
>
> >>What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
> computations?
>
> What is doing the imagining?
>
I assume we get onto that question higher up the chain of reasoning.

"Let's start at the very beginning..."

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread Chris de Morsella

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

 

On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.

 

>>What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?

What is doing the imagining?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread LizR

I would like to know what Edgar means by a computational world before I
worry about deriving the properties of particles.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb


On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>> 
wrote:


Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.


What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations?


Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb


On 1/15/2014 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more 
clearly and succinctly.


Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the 
usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist.


Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that 
conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the 
source of quantum randomness in the world.


There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and 
one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality.


 Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in 
any particle interaction in comp space.


The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle 
properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in 
every particle interaction.


The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing 
particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This 
is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on 
the particle properties conserved in that event.


Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. 
These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional 
particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They 
have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to 
satisfy the conservation laws.


Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, 
defined as a dimensional interrelationship.


Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an 
ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini 
spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations.


Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in 
myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The 
effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network 
of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical 
spacetime.


He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he 
can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the 
structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in 
aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our 
familiar spacetime.


But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a 
computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be 
continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes 
back into the computational reality from which it emerged.



Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR 
and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges 
from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate 
space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum 
event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved 
into a single spacetime common to all its elements.


E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are 
exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini 
spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation 
is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.


However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the 
mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the 
spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter 
the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to 
that of the first.


There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all 
depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a 
completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they 
are linked and aligned via a measurement event.


Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum 
events more
clearly and succinctly.

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In 
particular where
the usuall

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Edgar,

  There is another way to get particle property conservation: Particles
that happen to have the same properties have a symmetry that is unique to
QM: the exchange symmetry.
Study it carefully. :-)

  This symmetry does not require a singular collection of properties to be
"dimensional" or "inherently existing". It just says that if a pair of
particles are indistinguishable (for some observer!) there will exist a
variation in the wavefunction of the system made of the combined pair. If
that variation is of a positive character, the particles will be Bosons
(relative to each other). If the variation is of a negative character, the
particles will be Fermions (relative to each other).

   There are other possible variances that I will not get into, but the
upshot of this symmetry is that it acts to group particles that have the
same properties into groups and it can be argued that charge, spin and mass
properties flow from that grouping. There is no need for an external
computational space or system to do the job.

  I do agree a little bit with this that your wrote:

"But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually
a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist.
It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events
or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it
emerged."

  But for other reasons. Any illusion that there exists a classical
'physics' world out there that we are somehow floating in is a figment of
our imaginations. The universe is KNOWN to not be classical. Can we bury
that corpse already?

  OTOH, I do agree that space-time is a construction that could be
considered as you describe: "continually maintained by myriads of
continuing quantum events" If the quantum interaction process ends, the
particular events vanish. What we observe as space-time is merely the
photons that carry the information about the events and so we have an
illusion of persistence of events that could lead one to imagine that there
exists a global present moment.

  What is interesting is that the evolution of the phase of a QM system IS
a computation in the sense that it is a transformation of information! WE
do get something like a computational system that is generating space-time
and all events in it, but if we treat it as a single computer time
vanishes. This is known from study of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation: H=0.

  We can obtain a universe where any observer will have the experience of
time IF and only IF we do not use a single wave function for the universe
and thus do not require a single computer to perform the computation. We
can associate separate QM wave functions to each and every point of the
space-time manifold and use the evolution of the phase of these as the
local clock of those points on the manifold.
   We end up with an infinite number of computers generating space-time,
not one.

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All,
>
> I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum
> events more clearly and succinctly.
>
> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In
> particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
> spacetime background does NOT exist.
>
> Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in
> a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum
> 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world.
>
> There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to
> understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about
> reality.
>
>  Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle
> properties in any particle interaction in comp space.
>
> The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of
> all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among
> the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.
>
> The results of such computational events is that the particle properties
> of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be
> to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing
> particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties
> conserved in that event.
>
> Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle
> properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In
> other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing
> particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be
> conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the
> conservation laws.
>
> Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates
> a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.
>
> Now assume those particles keep interacting with o

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread LizR

On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.
>

What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread Edgar L. Owen

All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum 
events more clearly and succinctly.

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In 
particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional 
spacetime background does NOT exist.

Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in 
a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 
'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world.

There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to 
understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about 
reality.

 Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle 
properties in any particle interaction in comp space. 

The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of 
all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among 
the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.

The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of 
all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to 
be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles 
of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in 
that event.

Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle 
properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In 
other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing 
particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be 
conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the 
conservation laws.

Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates 
a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.

Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The 
result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships 
which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional 
interrelations.

Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously 
involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons 
impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous 
particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional 
interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical 
spacetime.

He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. 
All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional 
relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of 
the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and 
manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar 
spacetime. 

But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a 
computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It 
must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or 
it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it 
emerged.

Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually 
unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every 
mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely 
independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked 
and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When 
that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved 
into a single spacetime common to all its elements.

E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created 
their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their 
own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the 
conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human 
observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.

However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and 
aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the 
laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned 
with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the 
other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first.

There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 
'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of 
the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment 
from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a 
measurement event.

Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum 
> events more clearly and succinctly.
>
> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In 
> particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional 
> spacetime

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 04 Jan 2014, at 09:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will  
you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it  
off?"


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse.


That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality,  
and also, you don't know in which branch of the multiverse (if that  
exists), or the multi-dream, it will continue.


But, at least in your theory, it will necessarily continue and in  
many "worlds".


It is a theorem, in a weak form of the oldest theory on the matter.








So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to  
switch it off?


Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline  
to think that some machine think: switching it off is not allowed,  
unless we are in a state of legitimate defense.


But being switched off is not like death, it's like anesthetic, or  
suspended animation, or concussion.  The analog of death would be  
erasing the memory.


OK. I interpreted "switching of" as done irreversibly. My fault. Then  
there is no problem at all. It is a "delay of reconstitution", and in  
this case, by construction, it is done at the right (normal)  
substitution level (which conserves the normality). So no problem at  
all, unless you prevent the machine to find a job or something by  
switching it off momentarily ...











And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment  
for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight  
for, we better should listen to them. the case is not fundamentally  
different than with humans.


I'm not sure they have to ask.  Animals don't ask, and yet we extend  
some rights to them.


Human empathy.




Brent
“The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but  
"Can they suffer?”

   ---Jeremy Bentham


Nice quote.

Bruno


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 03 Jan 2014, at 23:10, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will  
you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it  
off?"


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or  
worse to switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what  
will be the punishment for violating them by switching it  
off?...switching it back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking  
you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced  
coma for some unspecified time period.


Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog?  A mouse?


If such an action is gratuitous, it should be. But "killing mouse" can  
be justified if it can save humans, usually. This leads to the complex  
question of the right of plants and animals. It is a bit out of the  
topics. The idea is that machines' right might lead to similar complex  
question, in some not so near future. We will need the intimate  
conviction of the members of the jury.


Bruno


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a
claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!

Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"

If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse.

That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality, and also, you don't
know in which branch of the multiverse (if that exists), or the multi-dream, it will
continue.

But, at least in your theory, it will necessarily continue and in many "worlds".

So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off?

Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline to think that some
machine think: switching it off is not allowed, unless we are in a state of legitimate
defense.

But being switched off is not like death, it's like anesthetic, or suspended animation, or
concussion. The analog of death would be erasing the memory.

And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by
switching it off?...switching it back on?

Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight for, we better should
listen to them. the case is not fundamentally different than with humans.

I'm not sure they have to ask. Animals don't ask, and yet we extend some
rights to them.

Brent
"The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they
suffer?"
---Jeremy Bentham

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 04 Jan 2014, at 02:44, Chris de Morsella wrote:





Exactly – the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it  
can say whatever it wants – after all who is checking lol -- and so  
can be customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally  
tuned comforting warm blanket of – essentially unquestioned --  
spiritual foundationalism. People seek easy pat “answers” to the  
hard questions… and really who can blame them.
Getting the comfortable framework in place supplies them with their  
pre-made answers and so solves the evolutionary problem posed by  
self-awareness, and the ensuing awareness of one’s own inevitable  
demise…. And the attendant psychological paralysis that opening this  
recursion of questions leading to deeper questions poses for the  
individual who may at any moment become lion food on the Savanna.  
Best to get an easy pat “answer” that addresses the dilemma and  
provides a comforting happy tale for the individual who can then  
focus on the day to day business of actually surviving another day.



Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side  
steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the  
blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired  
story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least  
in much of human history).


>>OK.

I would not say that it is ok;


OK!




it is the way things seem to play out, but I for one do not think  
this is Ok…  and I realize you were not assigning any value to the  
word J


I am just OK with your description/conclusion. It does not mean I am  
OK with them at all, 'course.


Bruno


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 03 Jan 2014, at 21:07, LizR wrote:


On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb  wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you  
switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it  
off?"


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or  
worse to switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what  
will be the punishment for violating them by switching it  
off?...switching it back on?


Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have  
reservations about the MWI?)



Note that with comp, arithmetic is a multidream. Does it define a  
multiverse? Perhaps. perhaps a multi-multiverse. We simply don't know  
yet.


Bruno





--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you  
switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it  
off?"


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse.


That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality, and  
also, you don't know in which branch of the multiverse (if that  
exists), or the multi-dream, it will continue.



So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to  
switch it off?


Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline to  
think that some machine think: switching it off is not allowed, unless  
we are in a state of legitimate defense.





And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for  
violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight  
for, we better should listen to them. the case is not fundamentally  
different than with humans.


Bruno





Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 03 Jan 2014, at 19:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:







That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no  
computations happening. It's a static block universe.

Is that possible?


The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the  
successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a  
physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural  
numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.


So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is  
given by the standard structure, known to be very complex,  
mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of  
course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a  
universal numbers).


That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't  
attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some  
(1p alas) point against this).


Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics  
appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable)  
ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) ,  
infer (Bp & Dt) , know (Bp & p), observe (Bp & Dt & p), feel (Bp &  
Dt & p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations.


You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in  
a confusion between two of those "number's points of view".
I would even say that the *theological* errors comes from confusion  
between those points of view, and their "star extension", when  
translated in G*.


Incompleteness not only forces the division between truth and  
provable, captured by the star extensions, but it forbids to the  
correct or sound machine/numbers to confuse the hypostases.


Subjective time appears in Bp & p, and in Bp & p & Dt, (and in  
B^n p & p & D^m t. If n < m, then we get a corresponding  
quantization, so the arithmetical quantizations are graded, and I  
hope to find some arithmetical Temperley Algebra there ..., that  
would be a path in the explanation of some physical space)


Physical time? Open problem.

The 3p is a block reality, which does not even refer to any notion  
of time or space, or consciousness, or whatever.


But from the average 1p discourses of machines relatively  
implemented (in the computer science sense) in that arithmetical  
reality, taking into account the FPI (by the "& Dt", actually) and  
the first person (and its umbilical link with truth, by the "& p")  
you can see or understand that from inside things are quite  
dynamical, and full of sense. The consciousness of the sense might  
be a semantical fixed point. Universal numbers are windows through  
which the Arithmetical Reality can explore Itself. The price is that  
it can lost itself and get tricked in infinitely many ways.


To sum up the 3p reality is certainly a sort of block reality, but  
the many 1p realities, naturally associated to the 3p  
arithmetization of meta-arithmetic (Gödel) and its Theaetetus  
variants (the points of view), are dynamical, and full of qualia  
(accepting standard properties of them).


Strangely salvia suggests that the 3p reality contains an universal  
1p-reality itself., which makes not much sense to me though, but if  
that was the case, the "whole truth" would plausibly be the initial  
consciousness capable of differentiating through the infinitely many  
universal numbers windows. I am not sure of that. It would make a  
brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of  
consciousness. I am still struggling on this. I made allusion to  
this with the notion of Galois connection, which exists between  
theories and models, name and things, equation/surface, 3p-body/1p- 
person, etc.


Bruno: Here is where my string cosmology model has an advantage.


It seems to assume a physical reality. But this won't work for the  
comp mind-body problem. We have to extract physics from computer  
science, that is Arithmetic.





As you know I think the particles of space that precipitate out of  
4D-spacetime,
are like monads in that they reflect or perceive or are conscious of  
all other monads
(in string theory either because they are a BEC or use r->1/r  
duality-mapping, or both).


My hypothesis is that they are also all distinct and perhaps even  
enumerable,
and hypothetically capable of computing the Arithmetic Reality  
including consciousness,
which of course would include a "3p reality [that] contains an  
universal 1p-reality itself,

corresponding to your Arithmetic Person.


How do you define a string without assuming arithmetic? It is a bit  
trivial to extract the simple (addition and multiplication) from the  
complex (string theory). Assulming comp I am supposed to have shown  
that we must to the contrary: extract strings, or the right physics,  
from comp and arithmetic.

You might need to formalize your approach to see that clearly.





"It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a  
realizer of consciousness."
which is also a

RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 1:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>>If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate
the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and
progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the
"monopoly".

One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while
I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for
example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a
branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is
falsifiable.

>>I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very
difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable.

Perhaps some clever experiments can be devised that indirectly test
predictions made by String Theory. along the lines of the ESA experiment
with the distant origin gamma rays, where they exploited the vast distances
of billions of light year, carefully measuring aspects of the photons (i.e.
their spin I believe) and deducing from this how spacetime must be smooth
down to extraordinarily small distances in the order of trillions of times
smaller than the Plank scale (itself far smaller than anything we can
directly probe using the atom smasher tools at our disposal) I believe
String Theory makes certain predictions about super symmetry for example
that may be testable. Up until now however - it is my understanding - and I
could be wrong (so if anyone knows better please do correct me) - that so
far the predictions it makes have not been able to be subjected to any
unambiguous test. For some years I felt it could never be done - the scales
are just too fine grained for the kinds of tools we have to explore the
small-scale, but when beautifully thought out experiments cleverly make use
of levers such as the huge scale of distance traversed by some gamma ray to
be able to make inferences about phenomena that cannot be directly measured
(even by an atom smasher bigger than our solar system) I begin thinking that
maybe its only a matter of time until some clever experimental
physicist/cosmologist devises some lever to be able to infer things about
Plank scale phenomena such as strings.

>>This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity". Maturity
here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This
has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer,
especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the
party ...

The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the
emperor's new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to
admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their
assertion of knowing. so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to
"pretend" - or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based
acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True
(with a capital 'T')

Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely
packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who
delve into it - are quite a bit harder to sell. 

Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to Aristotle, who
came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from too much big
metaphysical surprises.

Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems.

Exactly - the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it can say
whatever it wants - after all who is checking lol -- and so can be
customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally tuned comforting
warm blanket of - essentially unquestioned -- spiritual foundationalism.
People seek easy pat "answers" to the hard questions. and really who can
blame them. 

Getting the comfortable framework in place supplies them with their pre-made
answers and so solves the evolutionary problem posed by self-awareness, and
the ensuing awareness of one's own inevitable demise.. And the attendant
psychological paralysis that opening this recursion of questions leading to
deeper questions poses for the individual who may at any moment become lion
food on the Savanna. Best to get an easy pat "answer" that addresses the
dilemma and provides a comforting happy tale for the individual who can then
focus on the day to day business of actually surviving another day.

Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps
all the mess of actually trying

RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Chris de Morsella

And we won't get one.. As long as the lobby system runs Washington DC. Too
much money is being made on the current dysfunctional health system we are
stuck with. 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:36 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a
decent health care system...

On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb  wrote:

On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch  wrote:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am
serious!

Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"

If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse.
So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it
off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for
violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?

To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out
with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
unspecified time period.

 Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it
afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent
to knocking someone out).

Otherwise it's murder.

Last time that happened to me the "punishement" was that I had to pay about
$10,000 to the guy who did it.

Brent

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


That's the truth!  But to be fair, most of it was paid by my insurance.

Brent

On 1/3/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health 
care system...



On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the 
theoretical
basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it 
on? I am
serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it 
off?"


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or 
worse to
switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it 
back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you 
out with
chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
unspecified time period.

 Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it 
afterwards (so
it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking 
someone out).

Otherwise it's murder.


Last time that happened to me the "punishement" was that I had to pay about 
$10,000
to the guy who did it.

Brent



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a
decent health care system...


On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>   On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
>>> theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
>>> it on? I am serious!
>>>
>>>
>>>  Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"
>>>
>>>
>>>  If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
>>> multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
>>> switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
>>> punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?
>>>
>>
>>  To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you
>> out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for
>> some unspecified time period.
>>
>> Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it
> afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent
> to knocking someone out).
>
>  Otherwise it's murder.
>
>
> Last time that happened to me the "punishement" was that I had to pay
> about $10,000 to the guy who did it.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch > wrote:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis
for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am
serious!

Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"

If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
multiverse. So
how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it
off? And
if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for
violating them
by switching it off?...switching it back on?

To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out
with
chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
unspecified
time period.

Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it
might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out).

Otherwise it's murder.

Last time that happened to me the "punishement" was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the
guy who did it.

Brent

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

I'm going to sue the people who removed my gall bladder for every cent!

(...or maybe not, since they may have saved my life :)


On 4 January 2014 11:10, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
>> theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
>> it on? I am serious!
>>
>>
>>  Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"
>>
>>
>>  If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
>> multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
>> switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
>> punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?
>>
>
>  To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you
> out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for
> some unspecified time period.
>
>
> Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog?  A mouse?
>
> Brent
>
>  --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical 
basis for
a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the 
multiverse. So how
are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off?  And 
if we
give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by
switching it off?...switching it back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with 
chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time 
period.


Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog?  A mouse?

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
>> theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
>> it on? I am serious!
>>
>>
>>  Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"
>>
>>
>> If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
>> multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
>> switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
>> punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?
>>
>
> To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out
> with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
> unspecified time period.
>
>  Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it
afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent
to knocking someone out).

Otherwise it's murder.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
> theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
> it on? I am serious!
>
>
>  Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"
>
>
> If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
> multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
> switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
> punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?
>

Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have reservations
about the MWI?)

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
> theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
> it on? I am serious!
>
>
>  Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"
>
>
> If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
> multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
> switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
> punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?
>

To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out
with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
unspecified time period.

Jason

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a 
claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are 
you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off?  And if we give it 
political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it 
off?...switching it back on?


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>> Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person
>> view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered
>> sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a
>> conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some
>> computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts
>> on it.
>>
>>
>> Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but
>> once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I
>> made concerning some salvia experiences.
>>
>> Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from
>> the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all.
>>
>> I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from
>> the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of
>> view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.
>>
>> Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors.
>> Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color.
>> Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course,
>> as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot
>> do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience
>> as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself,
>> from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to
>> conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.
>>
>> That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the
>> experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an
>> experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination, yet, with some
>> amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and
>> completely impossible to described.
>>
>> Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be
>> lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal:
>> hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame
>> to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase,
>> the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness,
>> links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).
>>
>> So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience
>> which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and
>> eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state
>> of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles
>> me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth
>> might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be
>> even more closer to "religion" than what the simple machine's theology can
>> suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication
>> which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but,
>> like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root
>> for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia
>> quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further
>> explorations ...
>>
>>
> Bruno,
> From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently
> dynamic
>
>
> From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware
> arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one).
>
>
>
> and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp.
>
>
> This is unclear. What do you mean?
>
> Ah, you explain below.
>
>
>
>
> That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no
> computations happening. It's a static block universe.
> Is that possible?
>
>
> The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the successor
> relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is
> only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.
>
> So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is given
> by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the
> additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers
> (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers).
>
> That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't attribute
> consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point
> against this).
>
> Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics
> appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a
> machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp & Dt) ,
> know (Bp & p), observe (Bp &

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:



snip

Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first  
person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has  
an ordered sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to  
have had a conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the  
result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in  
hearing his own thoughts on it.


Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal  
experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude  
here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences.


Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even  
from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and  
that's all.


I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that  
from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine  
change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.


Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No  
colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do  
perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the  
experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and  
does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can  
understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in  
direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They  
do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the  
experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.


That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning  
the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that  
such an experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination,  
yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some  
sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described.


Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still  
be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is  
infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't  
really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict  
apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which,  
like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply  
consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).


So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an  
experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0  
seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ...  
in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as  
an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort  
of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious  
'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to  
"religion" than what the simple machine's theology can suggest.  
Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which  
cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but,  
like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is  
a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people  
find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I  
need further explorations ...



Bruno,
From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently  
dynamic


From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware  
arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian  
one).





and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp.


This is unclear. What do you mean?

Ah, you explain below.




That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no  
computations happening. It's a static block universe.

Is that possible?


The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the successor  
relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as  
it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3,  
etc.


So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is  
given by the standard structure, known to be very complex,  
mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course)  
structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers).


That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't  
attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some  
(1p alas) point against this).


Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics  
appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable)  
ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer  
(Bp & Dt) , know (Bp & p), observe (Bp & Dt & p), feel (Bp & Dt & p)  
themselves relatively to their most probable computations.


You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a  
confusio

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>>   Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.
>
>
>>
>>>

> Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the
> obvious.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying
>>> to understand.
>>>
>>
>> Right, that is good.
>>
>>
>>>  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that how explanations work?
>>
>>
>>> Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>>>
>>
>> It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.
>>  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the
>> ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world
>> as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. 
>> One
>> woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup 
>> of
>> tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when
>> pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as
>> some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
>> processing done by our brain.
>>
>
>> All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the
>> change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one
>> without the other.
>>
>
> Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person
> view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered
> sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a
> conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some
> computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts
> on it.
>
>
> Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but
> once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I
> made concerning some salvia experiences.
>
> Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from
> the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all.
>
> I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from
> the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of
> view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.
>
> Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors.
> Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color.
> Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course,
> as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot
> do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience
> as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself,
> from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to
> conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.
>
> That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the
> experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an
> experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination, yet, with some
> amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and
> completely impossible to described.
>
> Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be
> lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal:
> hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame
> to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase,
> the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness,
> links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).
>
> So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience
> which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and
> eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state
> of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles
> me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth
> might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be
> even more closer to "religion" than what the simple machine's theology can
> suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication
> which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but,
> like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root
> for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia
> quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further
> explorations ...
>
>
Bruno,
>From your salv

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

I think Aldous Huxley said something similar, I'm not sure what drugs he
took offhand - mescaline? - but I think he mentioned the "outside time"
experience.

Yes, good old Google tells me that it was indeed mescaline - and also
this...

In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an "I", but instead a
> "not-I". Meaning and existence, pattern and colour become more significant
> than spatial relationships and time. Duration is replaced by a perpetual
> present


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_doors_of_perception#Synopsis

(Maybe this is perceiving the reality of the Wheeler-deWitt equation!)

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote:

Hi Jason,

  Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...



Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.



Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses  
the obvious.




The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying  
to understand.


Right, that is good.

Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.

Isn't that how explanations work?

Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?

It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.   
There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose  
the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience  
the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of  
time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the  
street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars  
were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a  
glacier.  You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our  
perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our  
brain.


All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the  
change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have  
one without the other.


Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first  
person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has  
an ordered sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to  
have had a conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the  
result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in  
hearing his own thoughts on it.


Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience,  
but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a  
statement I made concerning some salvia experiences.


Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even  
from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and  
that's all.


I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that  
from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine  
change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.


Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors.  
Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive  
color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience,  
and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow  
testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that  
dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition  
with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived  
something that they were unable to conceive before the experience.  
There is a genuine learning or discovery.


That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning  
the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such  
an experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination, yet,  
with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but  
remains 1p and completely impossible to described.


Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be  
lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is  
infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really  
need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the  
S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's  
theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective  
time (knowledge evolution).


So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience  
which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and  
eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane  
state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination.  
It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that  
arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all,  
and that comp might be even more closer to "religion" than what the  
simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people  
says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not  
make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to  
generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more  
(and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and  
decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ...


Bruno



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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.goog

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:




   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as  
fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the  
other which will give us a 3p.



That's for woman and engineers. The doer.

Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am  
actually interested in the possibility of "artificial intelligence"  
as a reality, so these questions are not just an intellectual  
exercise.


IF AI is a reality, that would be an incentive for comp. But comp is  
stronger that "strong AI". machine can think does not imply that only  
machine can think, so they might think, and we could still be non- 
machine. Logically. Psychologically, if strong AI is true, it is  
doubtful we are not machines, as we have no evidences for that at all.








It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find  
any two different right brains ever agreeing.


So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth.


That makes truth dependent on us. But truth, especially the  
transcendental, *is* supposed to be independent of us, beyond us, etc.


All you need for comp is the belief in "17 is prime", or "the machine  
i stop after k step on input j", etc.




As I see things, we can derive the Platonic notion of trust by  
defining Absolute Truth as that which is incontrovertible for all  
possible entities.
 Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite  
resource accessibility don't care about Platonia.


They exists in the arithmetical Platonia. That's a fact. You can't  
ignore it.








Once you say "yes" to the doctor, you don't even need to define the  
1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.



Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you  
switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is "do we have the right to switch it off?"






But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational  
beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the  
knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!.


Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science  
and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional  
variants.


Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation  
other than your "canonical"? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms.


He is an expert in knot theory. G and G* are just advanced form of his  
Eigenforms. It is math, we can change the canonical, because the  
canonical is given by theorems, notably on those "eigenforms".









With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only  
build on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree  
it is ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the  
physical selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic  
ontology.  Computer science gives them on a plateau.


I worry that science here has become "scientism".


Why? That's seems to me to be a quite unfair gratuitous remark.

Nobody asks anyone to believe in comp, nor even in "17 is  
prime" (although you are asked this for the sake of the argument).
It is proved that if comp is correct, then the 1p and knowers are  
recovered by the most common definition of knowledge.


It is not scientism, it is reasoning in an hypothetical context. To  
confuse "reasoning" and scientism is bad philosophy, imo.


Bruno


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>>If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if  
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to  
interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the  
contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should  
help to avoid the "monopoly".

One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In  
fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as  
String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical  
philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated  
in a manner that is falsifiable.

I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very  
difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable.

>>This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity".  
Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we  
don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake  
having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the  
kids or the member of the party ...

The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable  
of the emperor’s new clothes is working hard within our minds. No  
one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly  
self-assured in their assertion of knowing… so yeah I agree the  
temptation is very strong to “pretend” – or perhaps to stop looking  
and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of  
doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital ‘T’)
Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of  
nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions  
upon those who delve into it – are quite a bit harder to sell.

Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to  
Aristotle, who came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from  
too much big metaphysical surprises.

Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems.

Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side  
steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the  
blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired  
story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least  
in much of human history).

OK.

Best,

Bruno

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
>   Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...
>
>
>
Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.



> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Did my message below slip past you?  I noticed you hadn't replied to it
>> yet.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Jason,


  On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jason,
>>
>>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved
>> in the discussion here.
>>
>
> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
> fundamental rather than emergent.
>

 How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires
 some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
 emergent.

>>>
>>> The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent.
>>>
>>
>
> This looks like an evasion. When the "its an illusion" answer doesn't
> work, try "its emergent" or some combination of the two. Come on.
>
>
>
Up above I said it was emergent and you said change cannot be emergent, so
I clarified that even if change cannot be emergent, then the illusion of
change (that is, the first person belief in a change which is not
fundamentally real) can be emergent.



>
>
>>
>>>
 Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the
 obvious.



>
>
>> The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying
>> to understand.
>>
>
> Right, that is good.
>
>
>>  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.
>>
>
> Isn't that how explanations work?
>
>
>> Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>>
>
> It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.
>  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the
> ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world
> as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One
> woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of
> tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when
> pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as
> some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
> processing done by our brain.
>

> All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the
> change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one
> without the other.
>

Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person view
is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence
of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious
experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some computation
stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it.



>
>
>
>>

 Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge.

>>>
>>> You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge
>>> though.
>>>
>>>
  Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?


>>> From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the
>>> idea from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible,
>>> the idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought
>>> experiments that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily
>>> unnecessary to explain our conscious experience of change, etc.
>>>
>>
>
> All thought experiments involve an entity that is imagining them. Don't
> they get factored into the argument? My main argument is that the god's eye
> point of view is an idea that need to be rubbished once and for all. A lot
> of problems vanish if we dispense with it. No global time, no global
> truths, no absolute space, etc.
>

I disagree, I think the God's eye view reveals many of our first person
ideas to be illusions: the idea of a moving time, the idea of a collapsing
wave function, the idea of a single universe, the idea of owning a single
body, etc., are all tricks played on us by our ego.


>
>
>
>>
>>>


>
>
>>   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
>> appearance of change.
>>
>
> It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to
> look for explanations of it.
>

 Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never
 learned to read Greek, sorry) is that

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Dear Stephen,
>
> On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
>I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
> and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
> us a 3p.
>
>
>
> That's for woman and engineers. The doer.
>

Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am actually
interested in the possibility of "artificial intelligence" as a reality, so
these questions are not just an intellectual exercise.





> It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two
> different right brains ever agreeing.
>

So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth. As I see things, we can
derive the Platonic notion of trust by defining Absolute Truth as that
which is incontrovertible for all possible entities.
 Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite
resource accessibility don't care about Platonia.





>
> Once you say "yes" to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p,
> just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.
>


Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am
serious!



>
> But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs
> by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given
> by Theaetetus reappears!.
>
> Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and
> the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants.
>

Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation other
than your "canonical"? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms.



>
>
> With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on
> that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is
> ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection,
> but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.  Computer science
> gives them on a plateau.
>

 I worry that science here has become "scientism". 




>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bruno,
>>
>>   Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?
>>
>>
>>
>> OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.
>>
>> But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific
>> explanation of the 1p, or on anything.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>>  Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

>>>
>>> This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
>>> "computations".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious,
 is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.

>>>
>>> Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose you
>>> an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
>>> substitution?
>>>
>>> Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present.

>>>
>>> It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
>>> search, using this or that theories.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
 moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
 reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
 block time, no MW, etc.

>>>
>>> In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should
>>> be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>> Senior Researcher
>>
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>
>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>
>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>
>>
>> “This message

RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers
and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap
between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible,
and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and
parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they
parroting parents, teachers, etc.

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense
of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we
project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for
direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative argument
(always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

>>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it
harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes
these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the
worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling
them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed
towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals
controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions
seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. 

>>I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be
genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to
communicate what is strictly incommunicable.

Yes, certainly. Terms and the usage of terms can be as slippery as an eel
(though I have not handled any eels so I cannot verify that they are indeed
slippery). Religion – at least this is my understanding of the term –
derives from the Latin religo a verb tense meaning more or less to rebind –
as in book binding where many pages are bound together into a larger
cohesive whole bound book. Now there are several ways one can interpret that
– the re-binding could have been intended to mean the re-bonding of the
individual soul with the larger cosmic story – as told by that faith
tradition; or it could mean the binding of many disparate individuals into a
single church.

I tend to use religion to refer to the organizational and intellectual
structures that are erected by faiths and are the manifestation of organized
faith practice; while using spirituality (or spiritual experience) to
indicate the exquisitely personal deep inner-experiences of those who seek
and have faith – and that could be having faith in some religion. If they
actively engage in seeking spiritual enlightenment etc. I  see that as a
personal spiritual pursuit – even if they are doing so within the
intellectual, doctrinal confines of some religion (i.e. organized faith
based system).

>>Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe
literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make
them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that
we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in
meta-self-correctness). 

You can bet on that J Any idea or edifice of ideas seeking to explain
everything is a prime candidate for takeover by that most deadly combination
of wolves and the many sheep who follow them.

on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the
currency of religion; 

>>Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.

I believe I thought; therefore I believe I am J

it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold
on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of
individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these
organized belief systems p

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,

 Hear Hear!


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
> reality
>
>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:
>
>
> My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"
>
>
> Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in
> numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,
> discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and
> proof about them.
>
> Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is
> impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not
> understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children
> believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.
>
> We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense
> of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when
> we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them
> for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative
> argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used
> the most).
>
> >>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to
> grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the
> responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in
> spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power.
>
> Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it
> harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes
> these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the
> worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling
> them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed
> towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the
> individuals controlling the belief establishment.
> Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions
> seek to establish a monopoly on belief….
>
>
>
> I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be
> genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to
> communicate what is strictly incommunicable.
>
> Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe
> literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make
> them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that
> we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope
> in meta-self-correctness).
>
>
>
>
> on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the
> currency of religion;
>
>
>
> Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.
>
>
>
> it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a
> stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the
> populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities)
> where these organized belief systems prevail.
>
>
> If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if
> theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate
> the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and
> progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the
> "monopoly".
>
> This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity". Maturity
> here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This
> has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer,
> especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the
> party ...
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from  
computational reality



On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:


My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"


Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in  
numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,  
discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about  
them and proof about them.


Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is  
impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not  
understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little  
children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.


We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large  
sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always  
wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong  
when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is  
only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the  
religion field, where it used the most).


>>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants  
refusing to grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want  
steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no  
interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more  
easily the money and power.


Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means;  
it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and  
systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression  
that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset  
answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective  
energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever  
political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the  
belief establishment.
Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo- 
religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief….



I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be  
genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to  
communicate what is strictly incommunicable.


Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe  
literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will  
make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science  
and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of  
cautious hope in meta-self-correctness).





on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is  
the currency of religion;



Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.



it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a  
stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within  
the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or  
communities) where these organized belief systems prevail.


If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if  
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to  
interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the  
contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should  
help to avoid the "monopoly".


This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity". Maturity  
here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know.  
This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the  
answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the  
member of the party ...


Bruno



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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing  
in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look  
inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth  
about them and proof about them.


As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me.   
People invented gods long before Peano and Godel and even before the  
idea of mathematical proof.  Gods were just anthropomorphized  
physics; things did what they did because "it was their nature".


I agree. The religious feeling appears when we are ignorant. Since  
always, some machine can introspect and discover the root of the  
intrinsic ignorance, and since Gödel & Al. we know that PA and ZF can  
do that, at least in some sense. Now, thunder can be very impressive,  
and it is normal that humans mix their feeling about that intrinsic  
ignorance and the one which today appears to us as more mundane and  
easily explainable from our current knowledge. But introspection still  
leads us to what we can't ever understand, and to that root of  
intrinsic ignorance about something transcendentally bigger than us.  
Institutionalized religion tries to hide that self-discovery for  
question of manipulation and control.


Bruno





Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union  
of the finite piece of the UD work.


Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the  
number of UD states corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite?


Yes. Our states are computable. But then they are distributed in the  
unavoidable infinity of computations going through that state (in the  
first person sense), making the experience undetermined on those  
computations.




Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?


Yes, indeed.


Bruno




Brent



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers
and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap
between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible,
and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and
parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they
parroting parents, teachers, etc.

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense
of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we
project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for
direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative argument
(always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

>>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it
harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes
these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the
worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling
them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed
towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals
controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions
seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. on what can be believed and what
cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; it stands to
reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire
psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that
are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief
systems prevail.

Chris

Bruno

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last Supper"
by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this -
avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of
all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of "The
Book", being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded
fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

No relevance to the present topic, of course.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread meekerdb


On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and 
induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and 
G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.


As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me.  People invented gods 
long before Peano and Godel and even before the idea of mathematical proof.  Gods were 
just anthropomorphized physics; things did what they did because "it was their nature".


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread meekerdb


On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece 
of the UD work.


Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states 
corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite?  Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?


Brent


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:

How does it emerge?

The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational
model. There is no "action" involved!

Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But
it does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and
changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively*
to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity,
somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in
that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, number sequence.

This puzzles me. How is the "recognition of action" and definitions
and measures of action equivalent to action itself?

They are not. Some actions can "happen" because some diophantine
relations emulates some 'history'. The recognition of action will
appear when the diophantine relation emulates some history involving
self-aware universal numbers. They do the recognition relatively to
that history.

The map is the territory?

The map is in the territory. There is a fixed point.

We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)

OK.

And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.

Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of
"emergings"?

There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the
"theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural
numbers and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers
and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in
arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all
finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that
the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.

In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to
achieve exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not
know.

Does it have to be "global"?

Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to
the whole of the Sigma_1 truth).

This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.

Yes, but the 1p don't see it, and the eternity is not in the ontology,
only in what the 1p misses.

I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer
that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.

He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication),
selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.

Yes, that "one" can obtain with an infinite number of constraints
imposed on the collection of computations.

Or not, but no matter what, that happens in infinitely many
diophantine relations.

A pigeon hole principle. This is why I promote the interaction/
participation picture of Wheeler.

I only give a problem. Solve it by any way you can, but try to
translate it in term of the G/G*/S4Grz/XYZ to get the quanta/qualia
distinction relevant in the comp mind body problem.

I reject that "God's eye view".

The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical
truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far
simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.

I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and
will give us what we have.

It depends from what you search.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify
sender immedi

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as
fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the
other which will give us a 3p.

That's for woman and engineers. The doer. It is only the right brain,
and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains
ever agreeing.

Once you say "yes" to the doctor, you don't even need to define the
1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.

But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational
beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the
knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!.

Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science
and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants.

With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build
on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is
ultrafundamental, and comp illustrates its role in the physical
selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.
Computer science gives them on a plateau.

Bruno

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?

OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

Bruno

If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard
sense of "computations".

The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as
explained in the other post.

Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose
you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level
of substitution?

Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is
real and actually exists means it must be present.

It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what
we search, using this or that theories.

That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common
present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the
shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus
of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Dear Stephen,
>
>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> I really do appreciate the details!
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>>  Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
>>> universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
>>> computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.
>>>
>>>   So an external time dimension is required.
>>
>>  So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less
>> computations...I'll try.
>>
>>
>> This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine
>> computing everything...including space and time.
>>
>>
>>  Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the
>> view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.
>>
>>
>> But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,
>>
>>
>> OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of
>> course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will
>> never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).
>>
>>
>>
> The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?
>
>
> Define 'self-obedience'.
>

" The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of course*
it obeys itself *to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never
emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x))."

You defined it: "it obeys itself". That is "self-obedience, no?



>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?
>>
>>
>> Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0)
>> sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational
>> histories.
>>
>
> OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?
>
>
>
> ?
> It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p -> Bp, for p sigma_1,
> is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).
>
> (Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can
> seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).
>


OK



>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> How does it emerge?
>>
>>
>> The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.
>>
>
> I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model.
> There is no "action" involved!
>
>
>
> Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it
> does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are
> defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal
> numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no
> absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3,
>  number sequence.
>

This puzzles me. How is the "recognition of action" and definitions and
measures of action equivalent to action itself? The map is the territory?

We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)




>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?
>>
>>
>> Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a
>> global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.
>>
>
> Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of
> "emergings"?
>
>
>
> There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the
> "theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural numbers
> and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers and they emerge
> from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the
> FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the
> UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first
> sense, yes.
>

In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to achieve
exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not know.



>
>
>
>
> Does it have to be "global"?
>
>
> Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the
> whole of the Sigma_1 truth).
>

This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.



>
>
>
> I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that
> has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.
>
>
> He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication), selected
> among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.
>

Yes, that "one" can obtain with an infinite number of constraints imposed
on the collection of computations. A pigeon hole principle. This is why I
promote the interaction/participation picture of Wheeler.



>
>
>
> I reject that "God's eye view".
>
>
> The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It
> is a little and sim

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,

   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
us a 3p.


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
>   Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?
>
>
>
> OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.
>
> But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific
> explanation of the 1p, or on anything.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>  Jason,
>>>
>>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
>>>
>>
>> This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
>> "computations".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious,
>>> is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
>>> post.
>>>
>>
>> Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose you an
>> artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
>> substitution?
>>
>> Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
>>> and actually exists means it must be present.
>>>
>>
>> It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
>> search, using this or that theories.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
>>> moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
>>> reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
>>> block time, no MW, etc.
>>>
>>
>> In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should
>> be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient,

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:39, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we  
observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or  
know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know  
(although not as such).

Here I use comp + Theaetetus.

But then to "know that we know" requires only that we know that we  
have a belief and that it's true:

B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p

that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp- 
>B(Bp).

We do have Bp -> BBp (as BP itself is sigma_1, and Löban machine  
proves p -> Bp for all sigm_1 proposition).

In this system isn't it the case that

 ((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

(p+q) -> s
thus by necessitation
B((p+q) -> s)
B((p+q) -> s) -> (B(p+q) -> Bs)   instance of the axiom K : B(a-> b) - 
> (Ba -> Bb)

B(p+q) <-> Bp + Bq(normal modal logic)
B((p+q) -> s) -> ((Bp+Bq) -> Bs) substitution preceding line
((Bp+Bq) -> Bs)  (modus ponens)

So it looks we can derive your:((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

But alas we have just use the deduction rule, which is not valid in  
the modal context when we use the necessitation rule. If not we could  
derive p -> Bp from the necessitation rule, and this is incorrect.
"p -> Bp" is usually wrong. This is easy to show by using Kripke  
semantics. Just take a world alpha with p true, accessing a world beta  
with p false. In alpha, p -> Bp is false.

Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold.

It does not. You confuse the necessitation rule (we can derive Bp from  
p), and the so called "trivial" formula: p->Bp.

In G we have neither Bp -> p, nor p -> Bp.
We do have have p -> Bp in G1 (the "G" we obtained when we limit the  
arithmetical interpretation of the variable atomic sentence (p,  
q, ...) on the sigma_1 sentence.

Bruno

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:


My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"



Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in  
numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,  
discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them  
and proof about them.


Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is  
impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not  
understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little  
children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.


We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large  
sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always  
wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong  
when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is  
only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the  
religion field, where it used the most).


Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to  
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the  
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in  
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and  
power.


Bruno




Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last  
Supper" by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles  
on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're  
right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all  
possible criticisms because of "The Book", being able to take the  
moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't  
seen the light, and so on.


No relevance to the present topic, of course.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


Dear Stephen,


On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:




I really do appreciate the details!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is  
the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results  
of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.


So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less  
computations...I'll try.


This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing  
machine computing everything...including space and time.


Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in  
the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,


OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of  
course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it  
will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements  
(AxP(x)).




The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?


Define 'self-obedience'.








so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?


Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even  
sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of  
computational histories.


OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?



?
It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p -> Bp, for p  
sigma_1, is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).


(Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can  
seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).









How does it emerge?


The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational  
model. There is no "action" involved!



Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it  
does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and  
changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to  
universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow.  
There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in  
the 0, 1, 2, 3,  number sequence.










And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a  
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of  
"emergings"?



There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the  
"theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural  
numbers and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers  
and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in  
arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all  
finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the  
FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.






Does it have to be "global"?


Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the  
whole of the Sigma_1 truth).




I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer  
that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.


He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication), selected  
among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.





I reject that "God's eye view".


The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth.  
It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler  
than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.



Bruno



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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?

OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

Bruno

If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard
sense of "computations".

The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as
explained in the other post.

Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose
you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level
of substitution?

Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is
real and actually exists means it must be present.

It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what
we search, using this or that theories.

That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared
locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of
reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear LizR,

   Indeed! The observation of ultra high energy gamma rays that traveled a
long long way ... no dependence seen between energy and velocity...

  My thought was to replace the single IceCube or FishBowl of space-time
with many; one per observer with a composition rule for observers that
generates the Lorentz invariance. (I got the idea from David
Finkelstein)...

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:16 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response
> is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too
> difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical
> beauty).
>
> Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum theory, as
> well as some aspect of conscious experience, or so I'm told - which isn't a
> bad start.
>
> By the way I do understand WHY you need to posit a common present moment.
> Any theory that attempts to quantise space-time has the same problem, that
> it's very hard to do it in a Lorentz-invariant way. Computational style
> theories (cellular automata, spin foams, LQG, CDT etc) all run into this
> problem. Only a space-time continuum can be *completely *Lorentz
> invariant, everything else has to break down at high enough energies and /
> or speeds. Hence the recent result that appear to sohw space-time is smooth
> to a very high degree of precision.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response
is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too
difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical
beauty).

Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum theory, as
well as some aspect of conscious experience, or so I'm told - which isn't a
bad start.

By the way I do understand WHY you need to posit a common present moment.
Any theory that attempts to quantise space-time has the same problem, that
it's very hard to do it in a Lorentz-invariant way. Computational style
theories (cellular automata, spin foams, LQG, CDT etc) all run into this
problem. Only a space-time continuum can be *completely *Lorentz invariant,
everything else has to break down at high enough energies and / or speeds.
Hence the recent result that appear to sohw space-time is smooth to a very
high degree of precision.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 1 January 2014 12:09, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz, et al,
>
> I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my
> business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just
> responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or
> those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the
> theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions
> over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of
> the theories.
>

I'm afraid the misunderstanding isn't with us, my dear. We keep asking the
same question because you persistently misunderstand what the problems are
with a theory that posits a common present moment.

So, can you answer this one yet?

The relativity of simultaneity affects *all* time dimensions connecting
events. P-time, clock-time, whatever - they are all susceptible to the same
analysis, with the results that Einstein showed. How do you reconcile this
fact with your "theory" ?

Until you give a satisfactory answer to the above question, rather than
just woolly hand waving accompanied by patronising comments about how
anyone who doesn't grasp the pearls of wisdom from your towering intellect
must be imbeciles*, people will keep asking it.

Best all and Happy New Year!
>
> You too!

* The poor fools! They said I was mad, but I showed them! I showed them
all! Nothing in the world can stop me now, not even you, Doctor / Sherlock
/ Mr Bond! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

** Oops, sorry, that just slipped out (must keep that to myself until AFTER
I rule the World...)

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Liz, et al,

I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my 
business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just 
responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or 
those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the 
theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions 
over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of 
the theories.

Best all and Happy New Year!
Edgar

On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:48:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch >wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in 
>>> the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
>>>
>>>
>> So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur 
>> in the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.
>>
>
> That reminds me, I mentioned that Edgar's argument is circular way back 
> and never got a reply. Although I guess most of my (and indeed our) 
> objections have gone unanswered.
>  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
>> the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
>>
>>
> So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur
> in the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.
>

That reminds me, I mentioned that Edgar's argument is circular way back and
never got a reply. Although I guess most of my (and indeed our) objections
have gone unanswered.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread meekerdb


On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't 
observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling 
and we know that we know (although not as such).


Here I use comp + Theaetetus.


But then to "know that we know" requires only that we know that we have a belief and that 
it's true:


B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p

that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp->B(Bp).  In this system 
isn't it the case that


 ((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last
Supper" by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this
- avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face
of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of
"The Book", being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the
deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

No relevance to the present topic, of course.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
> the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
>
>
So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur in
the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.

Jason


>
>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
>>> The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
>>> due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
>>> post.
>>>
>>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
>>> and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
>>> self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
>>> existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
>>> moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.
>>>
>>>
>> If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the
>> course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time,
>> then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether
>> presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't
>> follow.  Could you elaborate?
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>>
>> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
>> the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
>> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
>> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
>> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
>> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
>> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
>> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
>> any
>> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>>
>>
>
> Edgar,
>
> I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above
> reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some
> level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>

 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason


  --
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

  --
>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Bruno,

I really do appreciate the details!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>>  Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
>> universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
>> computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.
>>
>>   So an external time dimension is required.
>
>  So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less
> computations...I'll try.
>
>
> This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine
> computing everything...including space and time.
>
>
>  Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the
> view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.
>
>
> But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,
>
>
> OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of
> course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will
> never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).
>
>
>
The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?




>
> so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?
>
>
> Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0)
> sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational
> histories.
>

OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?



>
>
>
> How does it emerge?
>
>
> The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.
>

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model.
There is no "action" involved!



>
>
>
> And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?
>
>
> Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global
> relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.
>

Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of
"emergings"? Does it have to be "global"? I worry about this because it
seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to
simultaneously perceive all of the emergings. I reject that "God's eye
view".



>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>  The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1
> truth. With comp "everything" is the whole arithmetical truth, not just all
> computations.  It is also the truth about those computations, and 99,999 %
> of those truth are not computed by any machine. Goldbach conjecture is true
> of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by this or that machine,
> but that is independent of its truth or falsity.
>
>  To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the
> faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just to
> believe in addition and multiplication.
>
>  Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>  --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>   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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Bruno,

  Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? If we follow Wheeler's
reasoning there is no such thing!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>  Jason,
>>
>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
>>
>
> This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
> "computations".
>
>
>
>
>
>  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
>> due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
>> post.
>>
>
> Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose you an
> artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
> substitution?
>
> Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
>> and actually exists means it must be present.
>>
>
> It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
> search, using this or that theories.
>
>
>
>
>
>  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
>> moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
>> reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
>> block time, no MW, etc.
>>
>
> In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should be
> better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Edgar,

  You are making a claim without support. Can you explain a mechanism that
generates the occurrence of the content of the computations. Bruno and
Wheeler do. I am much more Happy with Wheeler's explanation involving
interactions, but he does not explain observers. Bruno does give us a
definition of observers but it is as "objects" that exist a priori.
   I advocate Kitoshi Hitada's definition of observers as separable QM
systems, but that definition does not explain where the observables obtain,
they just exist a priori as "potentia".

  What is your ontological theory?

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
> the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
>>> The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
>>> due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
>>> post.
>>>
>>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
>>> and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
>>> self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
>>> existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
>>> moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.
>>>
>>>
>> If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the
>> course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time,
>> then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether
>> presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't
>> follow.  Could you elaborate?
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar

 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>>
>> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
>> the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
>> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
>> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
>> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
>> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
>> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
>> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
>> any
>> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>>
>>
>
> Edgar,
>
> I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above
> reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some
> level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>

 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason

  --
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit 
 htt

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.


This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense  
of "computations".





The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are  
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as  
explained in the other post.


Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose you  
an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of  
substitution?


Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is  
real and actually exists means it must be present.


It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we  
search, using this or that theories.





That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present  
moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared  
locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of  
reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it  
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.


Bruno


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Jason,

Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in 
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The 
>> FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due 
>> to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.
>>
>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real 
>> and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality 
>> self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our 
>> existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present 
>> moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.
>>
>>
> If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the 
> course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time, 
> then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether 
> presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't 
> follow.  Could you elaborate?
>
>
> Jason
>  
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
>>> sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>
> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within 
> the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
> any 
> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>   
>

 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above 
 reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some 
 level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason 


>>>
>>> Edgar,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that 
>>> consciousness is the result of a computation.
>>>
>>> If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single 
>>> moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the 
>>> same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?
>>>
>>> If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a 
>>> moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will 
>>> still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?
>>>
>>> I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind 
>>> can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our 
>>> feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for 
>>> what the reality of the matter is.
>>>
>>> Jason  
>>>
>>>
>>>  -- 
>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>  -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
> FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
> to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.
>
> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and
> actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
> self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
> existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
> moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.
>
>
If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the
course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time,
then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether
presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't
follow.  Could you elaborate?


Jason


>
>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
>> sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>


 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.


>>>
>>> Edgar,
>>>
>>> I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning.
>>> It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds
>>> that  the right computations can produce consciousness.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
>> consciousness is the result of a computation.
>>
>> If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
>> moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
>> same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?
>>
>> If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
>> moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
>> still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?
>>
>> I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can
>> escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling
>> of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the
>> reality of the matter is.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> Visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>  --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Hi Edgar,

  Wheeler shows how it is possible to obtain an emergent world from
interactions between observers. It seems that I might have the exactly
title of the paper wrong!

Please read this! You will see the relevance immediately!

http://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pdf

Here is a nice commentary on the paper:
http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize
> why...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> Dear Edgar,
>>
>>   I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
>> understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
>>> The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
>>> due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
>>> post.
>>>
>>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
>>> and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
>>> self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
>>> existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
>>> moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>>
>> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
>> the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
>> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
>> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
>> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
>> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
>> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
>> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
>> any
>> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>>
>>
>
> Edgar,
>
> I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above
> reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some
> level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>

 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason


  --
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

 Visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> To post to this group, s

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Stephen,

No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize why...

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>   I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you 
> understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The 
>> FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due 
>> to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.
>>
>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real 
>> and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality 
>> self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our 
>> existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present 
>> moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
>>> sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>
> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within 
> the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
> any 
> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>   
>

 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above 
 reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some 
 level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason 


>>>
>>> Edgar,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that 
>>> consciousness is the result of a computation.
>>>
>>> If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single 
>>> moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the 
>>> same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?
>>>
>>> If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a 
>>> moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will 
>>> still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?
>>>
>>> I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind 
>>> can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our 
>>> feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for 
>>> what the reality of the matter is.
>>>
>>> Jason  
>>>
>>>
>>>  -- 
>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> step...@provensecure.com 
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of 
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain 
> information that is non-public, proprieta

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Edgar,

  I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
> FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
> to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.
>
> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and
> actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
> self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
> existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
> moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
>> sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>


 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.


>>>
>>> Edgar,
>>>
>>> I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning.
>>> It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds
>>> that  the right computations can produce consciousness.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
>> consciousness is the result of a computation.
>>
>> If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
>> moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
>> same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?
>>
>> If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
>> moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
>> still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?
>>
>> I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can
>> escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling
>> of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the
>> reality of the matter is.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> Visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete thi

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The 
FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due 
to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and 
actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality 
self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our 
existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present 
moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" > 
> wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
> sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>>>
>>> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the 
>>> computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
>>> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
>>> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
>>> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
>>> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
>>> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
>>> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any 
>>> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>>>   
>>>
>>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. 
>> It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds 
>> that  the right computations can produce consciousness.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason 
>>
>>
>
> Edgar,
>
> Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that 
> consciousness is the result of a computation.
>
> If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single 
> moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the 
> same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?
>
> If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving 
> present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still 
> feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?
>
> I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can 
> escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling 
> of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the 
> reality of the matter is.
>
> Jason  
>
>
>  -- 
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Jason Resch




On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:


Jason,

Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully  
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.


Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch   
wrote:



Do you think a computer can be conscious?

If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within  
the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block- 
time universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/ 
what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take  
a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present  
universe?  If you see no reason the computations should diverge,  
then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are  
the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could  
not behave any differently.  This includes any realization that it  
is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.



Edgar,

I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above  
reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe  
at some level holds that  the right computations can produce  
consciousness.


Thanks,

Jason




Edgar,

Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that  
consciousness is the result of a computation.


If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single  
moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as  
the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that  
executed it?


If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a  
moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation  
will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?


I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind  
can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our  
feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator  
for what the reality of the matter is.


Jason



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Jason,

Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>>
>> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the 
>> computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
>> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
>> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
>> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
>> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
>> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
>> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any 
>> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>>   
>>
>
> Edgar,
>
> I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. 
> It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds 
> that  the right computations can produce consciousness.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason 
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb wrote:

But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one
we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying
that somethings happen at random and they led to here.

Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions
about the nature of reality.

How so? They seem of similar magnitude to me. Remember I'm asking
for an explanation of *this*. Not just an explanation of why there
is *some world* with people.

Because observers do something, they Observe. That is an action.
Don't separate observers from their observations. Simple rule
linking observers to observations. X can only experience worlds
(collections of observations) whose existence is consistent with the
observer's existence.

Let me drill down a bit more into this.

We can take for granted that when we observe some X, we are also
observing ourselves in the act of observing X. It is a Lob theorem
kinda thing.

To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we
observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know,
it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although
not as such).

Here I use comp + Theaetetus.

Bruno

Prof. Standish was right about ants! There is no consciousness
without self-awareness! Also, disallowing ghost prohibits the
possibility of observing a world "from the outside".

Is this helping?

Brent

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because  
instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there  
appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain  
anything. I have read just about every book and paper that  
attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer  
any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first  
place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,  
whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is  
the one that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a  
movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read  
are not attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to  
explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I  
suspect that you are betraying a personal  
bias  against the idea by using that  
phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)


You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is  
the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this  
is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how  
things change over time. They describe a block universe.


Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming  
there has to be an external time in which one sequence is  
selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In "classical"  
relativity this question is answered by saying that the block  
universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics,  
assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type  
answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader  
answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of  
physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or  
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with  
the laws of physics occur.


But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a  
multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory)  
initial conditions obtain?


That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of  
"theory of nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions  
requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark  
suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical  
structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies  
all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in  
the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required,  
but I suspect not.)


Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)  
reasonable?


But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one  
we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying  
that somethings happen at random and they led to here.


Ok, but that does not apply to computationalism. Tegmark is missing  
the comp mind-body problem, the FPI, etc. Even if it makes sense to  
say that "we are in a mathematical structure", that "mathematical  
structure" must be extracted from the FPI on the sigma_1 sentences.


Bruno




Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > wrote:

Hi LizR,

Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because
instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there
appear to be smooth change between them." does not explain
anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts
to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason
for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we
point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still
need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just
"happened". No, it could not "Happen".

A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a
movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read
are not attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to
explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I
suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by
using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But
anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is
what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things
change over time. They describe a block universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there
has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or
evolves, or otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this
question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only
possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be
deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum
theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing
all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of
physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with
the laws of physics occur.

But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse
in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial
conditions obtain?

That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of
"theory of nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions
requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark
suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical
structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies
all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in
the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required,
but I suspect not.)

Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)
reasonable?

Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing.

You need to say what you mean by "thing" to explain what is meant by
"nothing". The same with everything. For example, to define the
quantum vacuum, you need to assume Hilbert Space or von Neumann
Algebra, which are a lot of thing by itself.

Bruno

It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is
"fundamental": change exists at all levels - this can happen when we
reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is
not a "thing", at best it is a transition between a pair of things...

I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from t

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is  
the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results  
of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.


So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less  
computations...I'll try.


This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine  
computing everything...including space and time.


Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in  
the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,


OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of  
course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it  
will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements  
(AxP(x)).





so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?


Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even  
sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of  
computational histories.





How does it emerge?


The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.




And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a  
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


Bruno





Brent

The universal machine does not compute everything---only the  
sigma_1 truth. With comp "everything" is the whole arithmetical  
truth, not just all computations.  It is also the truth about those  
computations, and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any  
machine. Goldbach conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It  
may be be proved by this or that machine, but that is independent  
of its truth or falsity.


To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have  
the faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks  
you just to believe in addition and multiplication.


Bruno





Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>
> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the
> computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>
>

Edgar,

I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It
seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds
that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

Thanks,

Jason

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>>   But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
>> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
>> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>>
>>  Yeah, it's the WAP.
>
>  Seems quite reasonable to me.
>
>  It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions
> about the nature of reality.
>
>
> How so?  They seem of similar magnitude to me.  Remember I'm asking for an
> explanation of *this*.  Not just an explanation of why there is *some
> world* with people.
>

Because observers do something, they Observe. That is an action. Don't
separate observers from their observations. Simple rule linking observers
to observations. X can only experience worlds (collections of observations)
whose existence is consistent with the observer's existence.

Let me drill down a bit more into this.

  We can take for granted that when we observe some X, we are also
observing ourselves in the act of observing X. It is a Lob theorem kinda
thing. Prof. Standish was right about ants! There is no consciousness
without self-awareness! Also, disallowing ghost prohibits the possibility
of observing a world "from the outside".

Is this helping?

>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:08 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>> But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
>> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
>> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>>
>> Yeah, it's the WAP.
>
> Seems quite reasonable to me.
>
> It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about
> the nature of reality.
>

Yeah, we start with what we know to be true: I am experiencing something.
That leads, via Descartes skeptical analysis for example, to: I think
therefore I am. We correct this to: "I think therefore I was" as the
"state" that one "is" is the one that was computed by the look back. It is
not sitting there like a husk waiting to be possessed momentarily by a
disembodied mind...

  In this way of thinking there can be no zombies and no ghosts. If there
is no possibility of a body, there cannot be a mind either and vice versa.

>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear LizR,
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <
 stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

>  Hi LizR,
>
 Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I
>> can buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all
>> levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
>> thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between
>> a pair of things...
>>
>
> That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states
> and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.
>

No, that doesn't work as it ignores the "cause" of the transition. I
understand the confusion on this concept. We are used to thinking that
state transitions is a one to one map. A ->B. But think for a second: What
if I have multiple and different possible next states?

A -> B or A-> B' or A->B''

What then?

Vaughan Pratt figured out a way to do this! One allows for all possible
future states, given some current state A, then looks at each of those Bs
and asks: Which of these preserves the "truths" of A and yet is a different
state. If B' is the most logical consequence of A, given A's "facts, then
B' obtains and not B or B''. It is a local selection mechanism. We repeat
this over and over and obtain the appearance of a "dimension of time": a
sequence of events that can be mapped to the integers. We notice that this
time as a constructive process generates worlds that have a difference
between their past and future, in the sense that "I can remember by past,
but I cannot recall my future". Why? Because it wasn't computed yet.

Logic looks backwards from the future, physics moves forward from the past.

>
> However, you *do *assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with
> no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then
> obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from
> anything simpler.
>

Yes! There is no need for anything simpler! It does the job. 

>
>>   I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...
>>
>
> Hope you get well soon!
>

Thank you!  I really enjoy these back and forths...

>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:



But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we 
happen to
exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings 
happen at
random and they led to here.

Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about the nature of 
reality.


How so?  They seem of similar magnitude to me.  Remember I'm asking for an explanation of 
*this*.  Not just an explanation of why there is *some world* with people.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:49 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  Hi Brent,
>
>  "But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
> somethings happen at random and they led to here."
>
>  No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not
> "random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with
> our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us
> (communicating/interacting observers).
>
>
> Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must
> be one suitable for our existence too.
>
> Brent
>

But we don't need to assume "randomness" in the acausal sense. As I see
things, the "reality" in which we find ourselves is one that evolved, but
the "one" was selected as being the one at least compatible with our
experience in it.
  I reject pre-ordained harmonies as unnecessary! We don't have to "impose"
order and consistency. All we need are local rules that allow consistency
and then notice that we only experience ourselves in those worlds that are
consistent with us "in them".

>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR

On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>
> Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about
the nature of reality.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR

On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Dear LizR,
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
  Hi LizR,

>>> Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can
> buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all
> levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
> thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between
> a pair of things...
>

That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states
and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.

However, you *do *assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with
no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then
obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from
anything simpler.

>
>   I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...
>

Hope you get well soon!

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

"But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist 
in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and 
they led to here."


No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not "random" per se. 
The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it 
and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers).


Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must be one suitable 
for our existence too.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Hi Brent,

"But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at random and they led to here."

No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not
"random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with
our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us
(communicating/interacting observers).


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > > wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi LizR,
>>>
>>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>>
>>
>>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
>> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
>> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
>> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
>> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
>> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>>
>>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
>> laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the
>> laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time.
>> They describe a block universe.
>>
>>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
>> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
>> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
>> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
>> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
>> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
>> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
>> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
>> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>>
>>
>>  But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
>> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?
>>
>>
>
>  That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory
> of nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
> information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
> is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra
> information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
> outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
> may be required, but I suspect not.)
>
>  Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)
> reasonable?
>
>
> But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth 
change
between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every 
book and
paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None 
offer
any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. 
If we
point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still 
need to
explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened". 
No, it
could not "Happen".


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie 
stacked on
top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to 
"explain
time away" - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the 
relevant
equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias 
against the
idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But 
anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of
physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of 
physics
are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a 
block
universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to 
be an
external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise 
occurs.
In "classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block
universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be
deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in 
the
form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the
probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to 
evolve or
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws 
of
physics occur.


But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in 
which all
possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?


That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of nothing" - to 
specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific 
ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical 
structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible 
starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A 
visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.)


Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?


But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  
I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led 
to here.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear LizR,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > > wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi LizR,
>>>
>>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>>
>>
>>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
>> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
>> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
>> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
>> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
>> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>>
>>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
>> laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the
>> laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time.
>> They describe a block universe.
>>
>>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
>> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
>> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
>> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
>> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
>> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
>> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
>> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
>> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>>
>>
>> But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
>> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?
>>
>>
>
> That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of
> nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
> information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
> is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra
> information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
> outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
> may be required, but I suspect not.)
>
> Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?
>

Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can
buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all
levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between
a pair of things...

  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...


>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
F

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Brent,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi LizR,
>>
>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>
>
>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>
>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws
> of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws
> of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They
> describe a block universe.
>
>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>
>
> But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions
> obtain?
>

Yes, QM -as standardly used- has a state transition model to do
calculations with it. There are other ways of doing computations. My
favorite is Hewitt's Actor Model:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7erJ1DV_Tlo

Observers come with self-consistent universes -which are their
observations. Interactions between these must be, at some level, logically
non-contradictory (incontrovertible).



>
> Brent
>
>
>  That answers the question of how this particular sequence "just happens"
> for both GR *and *QM!
>
>  :-)
>   --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi LizR,
>>
>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>
>
>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>
>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws
> of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws
> of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They
> describe a block universe.
>
>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>
>
> But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?
>
>

That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of
nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra
information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
may be required, but I suspect not.)

Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality