date:20131221

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-21 Thread Craig Weinberg

For me, the critical issue for accounting for everything under a single 
reality theory is what I call the Presentation Problem. In simple terms, 
there is no logical reason for the logical universe to produce shapes, 
colors, flavors, or feelings of any kind when we already know that 
information processing can occur using only quantitatively formatted 
signals. I include under the Presentation Problem five well known or easily 
observed issues:

*1. Hard Problem* = Why is X presented as an experience?

(X = “information”, logical or physical functions, calcium waves, action 
potentials, Bayesian integrations, etc.)

*2. Explanatory Gap* = How and where is presentation accomplished with 
respect to X?

*3. Binding Problem* = How are presented experiences segregated and 
combined with each other? How do presentations *cohere*?

*4. Symbol Grounding* = How are experiences associated with each other on 
multiple levels of presentation? How do presentations *adhere*?

*5. Mind Body Problem* = Why do public facing presences and private facing 
presences seem ontologically exclusive and aesthetically opposite to each 
other?

http://multisenserealism.com/the-competition/the-presentation-problem/

Without tying all of these together in a plausible way, I don't see 
anything to recommend computation over physics or mythology or any other 
creation schema that can be supported.

Thanks,
Craig

On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book 
> on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
>
> Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers 
> (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that 
> continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software 
> includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In 
> fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a 
> logical structure just as is the case in computational reality.
>
> Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is 
> mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of 
> reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the 
> mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with 
> its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had 
> nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the 
> present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I 
> present a computational based information approach to these in my book 
> among many other things.
>
> The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's 
> work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and 
> logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and 
> extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual 
> logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities 
> and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality).
>
> I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in 
> my book...
>
> Edgar Owen
>
>

-- 
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.

For Profit Online University (Short Video You Should Watch)

2013-12-21 Thread Craig Weinberg

http://t.co/cFfMA7zzPB


Adult Swim has been quietly airing this fake infomercial for "For-Profit 
> Online University" all this week at 4am. *FPOU* is a one-off special from 
> a conglomerate of former *Onion *writers called Wild Aggressive 
> Dog, 
> which is made up of Geoff Haggerty, Dan Klein, Matthew Klinman, Michael 
> Pielocik, Chris Sartinsky, and Sam West. *FPOU* was written and directed 
> by West, with some writing assistance from the other Wild Aggressive Dog 
> writers, and it stars Nicole Byer, Nick Corirossi, and Brian Huskey, among 
> others. The network has been airing faux-infomercial's late at night, like 
> Michael 
> Ian Black's series *You're 
> Whole*or
>  Rob 
> Huebel's one-off Dragon Shumway knife 
> infomercial,
>  
> but *FPOU* is the best one yet.


-- 
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: Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse

2013-12-21 Thread meekerdb

On 12/21/2013 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953.pdf

Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse

Andreas Albrecht , Daniel
Phillips

(Submitted on 5 Dec 2012)

We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of
probabilities
originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic physical world around
us,
often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus we claim there is no physically
verified fully classical theory of probability. We comment on the general
implications of this view, and specifically question the application of
classical
probability theory to cosmology in cases where key questions are known to
have no
quantum answer.

Richard: I cannot copy over the relevant portions of the text. They
conclude:

"thus are very skeptical of multiverse theories that depend on classical
probabilities for their predictive power".

Is it a snooker? Does not MWI use quantum probabilities?
It might be worth a read.

They assumed QM, and physicalism, which are not available options once we assume
computationalism.

I think you answered to quickly, without reading the paper. Probably they do assume
physicalism, but I don't think it enters into their argument; and I think their
conclusions are compatible with your theories.

Brent

MWI somehow does bring back classical probability, from the quantum, making it into an
ignorance about the computations which bear our actual relative state, in the comp theory.

Bruno

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

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: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-21 Thread Edgar Owen

Hi John,

First thanks for the complement on my post!

To address your points. Of course we do have some knowledge of reality. We 
have to have to be able to function within it which we most certainly do to 
varying degrees of competence. That is proof we do have sufficient 
knowledge of reality to function within it.

Yes, computations include logic as well as math.

Best,
Edgar




On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book 
> on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
>
> Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers 
> (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that 
> continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software 
> includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In 
> fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a 
> logical structure just as is the case in computational reality.
>
> Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is 
> mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of 
> reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the 
> mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with 
> its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had 
> nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the 
> present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I 
> present a computational based information approach to these in my book 
> among many other things.
>
> The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's 
> work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and 
> logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and 
> extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual 
> logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities 
> and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality).
>
> I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in 
> my book...
>
> Edgar Owen
>
>

-- 
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.

Newbie

2013-12-21 Thread Edgar Owen

Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the first 
Google Group I'm on.

First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take quite a 
while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are the moderator(s).

Second I thought I set my settings to get all posts as emails on my MacMail 
so I can reply there which is best for me. But I see a lot of posts on the 
group website I don't seem to be getting in my MacMail. Can anyone tell me 
if there is some delay or how to set that correctly?

Thanks,
Edgar


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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.

51 matches

Mail list logo