Re: The difficulties of executing simple algorithms: why brains make mistakes computers don't.
On 22 December 2013 23:28, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-odd-easy-feat-mind.html Even scientists are fond of thinking of the human brain as a computer, following sets of rules to communicate, make decisions and find a meal. Almost all adults understand that it's the last digit—and only the last digit —that determines whether a number is even, including participants in Lupyan's study. But that didn't keep them from mistaking a number like 798 for odd. A significant minority of people, regardless of their formal education, believe 400 is a better even number than 798, according to Lupyan, and also systematically mistake numbers like 798 for odd. After all, it is mostly odd, right? Most of us would attribute an error like that to carelessness, or not paying attention, says Lupyan, whose work was published recently in the journal Cognition. But some errors may appear more often because our brains are not as well equipped to solve purely rule-based problems. Asked in experiments to sort numbers, shapes, and people into simple categories like evens, triangles, and grandmothers, study subjects often broke simple rules in favor of context. For example, when asked to consider a contest open only to grandmothers and in which every eligible contestant had an equal chance of victory, people tended to think that a 68-year old woman with 6 grandchildren was more likely to win than a 39-year old woman with a newborn grandkid. Even though people can articulate the rules, they can't help but be influenced by perceptual details, Lupyan says. Thinking of triangles tends to involve thinking of typical, equilateral sorts of triangles. It is difficult to focus on just the rules that make a shape a triangle, regardless of what it looks like exactly. In many cases, eschewing rules is no big deal. In fact, it can be an advantage in assessing the unfamiliar. This serves us quite well, Lupyan says. If something looks and walks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. Unless it's a math test, where rules are absolutely necessary for success. Thankfully, humans have learned to transcend their reliance on similarity. After all, although some people may mistakenly think that 798 is an odd number, not only can people follow such rules—though not always perfectly—we are capable of building computers that can execute such rules perfectly, Lupyan says. That itself required very precise, mathematical cognition. A big question is where this ability comes from and why some people are better at formal rules than other people. That question may be important to educators, who spend a great deal of time teaching rules-based systems of math and science. Students approach learning with biases shaped both by evolution and day-to-day experience, Lupyan says. Rather than treating errors as reflecting lack of knowledge or as inattention, trying to understand their source may lead to new ways of teaching rule-based systems while making use of the flexibility and creative problem solving at which humans excel. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24156803 The difficulties of executing simple algorithms: why brains make mistakes computers don't. Lupyan G. Abstract It is shown that educated adults routinely make errors in placing stimuli into familiar, well-defined categories such as triangle and odd number. Scalene triangles are often rejected as instances of triangles and 798 is categorized by some as an odd number. These patterns are observed both in timed and untimed tasks, hold for people who can fully express the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership, and for individuals with varying levels of education. A sizeable minority of people believe that 400 is more even than 798 and that an equilateral triangle is the most trianglest of triangles. Such beliefs predict how people instantiate other categories with necessary and sufficient conditions, e.g., grandmother. I argue that the distributed and graded nature of mental representations means that human algorithms, unlike conventional computer algorithms, only approximate rule-based classification and never fully abstract from the specifics of the input. This input-sensitivity is critical to obtaining the kind of cognitive flexibility at which humans excel, but comes at the cost of generally poor abilities to perform context-free computations. If human algorithms cannot be trusted to produce unfuzzy representations of odd numbers, triangles, and grandmothers, the idea that they can be trusted to do the heavy lifting of moment-to-moment cognition that is inherent in the metaphor of mind as digital computer still common in cognitive science, needs to be seriously reconsidered. One thing you fail to grasp is the difference between small scale and large scale effects. That there are mistakes made by the person does not mean there are mistakes made by
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:43, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Of course the question is still ambiguous, it looks like how many 3-1-1 = 3-1 views, which is 7 billions. Can you explain why you ask? Does it change anything about the indeterminacy in the WM duplication. If yes explain, please. (I might answer late as the next days will be busy) Bruno Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant. John K Clark -- 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: God or not?
On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. Do you mean the physical universe? That is an Aristotelian God. I am agnostic, but if computationalism is true, that God does not exist. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), ? I disagree. You need faith for that God too. and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. Not at all. Are you aware of the first peson indeterminacy? and the consequences? But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago Yes, they are fairy tales. But with comp, a primitive physical universe is also a sort of fairy tale, or at least it is only a simplifying hypothesis, which today is arguably contradicted by some facts and it is also logically incompatible with the comp theory and Occam. Bruno Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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: Posting problems
On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:09, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Me. It seems to work. I avoid the google group pages, where it is hard to see well the post. I use only the mails. Bruno 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. 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to impose on reality. Not at all. I start from molecular biology, which suggest we are Turing emulable, and I derive consequences only from that assumption. I don't defend any truth. I just say, if we are machine then ... My approach is to closely examine reality and then try to figure out how it works and what ITS innate rules and structures are. Not sure what you mean by examining reality. I would probably agree with much of what you say, if you were saying it about human logico-mathematical structures, but the logico- mathematical structure of reality is not bound by human rules. In which logic? What are your starting assumption? You seem to be unaware that a reality is only an assumption (except for consciousness here and now). We might be dreaming, for example. It runs according to its own logic and science is the process of trying to figure out what those rules are and how they work... For example, reality is clearly a computational process, It cannot be. Independently of any assumption. and it runs against pure information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe. There is simply no other way current information states of reality could result from previous ones other than by a computational process. You seem to ignore the UD-Argument. It refutes that idea. How that computational process works must be determined by examining reality itself. We may try to make sense of it in terms of traditional human math theory, but when there are differences then reality always trumps human math theory, which applies to human math rather than reality's logico-mathematical system. I need to know exactly what is your theory, which seems to be non computationalist. You need non-comp to get a primitive physical reality. Bruno Edgar 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. 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: Posting problems
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:13:53AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:09, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? Me. It seems to work. I avoid the google group pages, where it is hard to see well the post. I use only the mails. Bruno Me also, but I don't use a Mac. The only issue I notice is occasionally messages are classified as spam. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: God or not?
On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:43, meekerdb wrote: On 12/23/2013 11:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/23/2013 10:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist Well no... It is certain that I experience a reality but that there exists a consistent physical universe defined everywhere is not certain... Is your experience consistent, i.e. describable without contradictions? OK, then how you conceive it is your model of reality and the universe. If it includes things independent of your thoughts external to you, and other people that agree on these things, then that's the physics of it. Whether it's 'defined everywhere' would depend on your model. I agree but any model is *far* from certainty... so defining God as meaning the universe doesn't settle at all that it exists... I agree. In fact it tends to drag a lot of bronze age tribal baggage into scientific questions - which is why I wish Bruno would stop casually using religious metaphors. It is not a metaphor. saying yes to the doctor asks for a non metaphorical act of faith, and cannot be imposed to anyone, for reason of conceptual consistency and humanity). You seem to associate religion with the Aristotelian traditions, but it can also be associated with the rational mysticism of Plato and its followers (and Pythagorus' too). Indeed, with comp, it has to be associated with Plato/Plotinus. It gives basically Aristotle minus all fairy tales about creator *and* the creation. If you don't do that, people will continue to believe that the primitive existence of the physical universe is a scientific fact, which it is not. 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 23 Dec 2013, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote: On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and privateness. Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work honestly or not. honestly is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete). Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life goal. When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so those who make money the main goal crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal. It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool. Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid. The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth. I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver. Now you may say this is lying, but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. Artificially increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0 I agree. All is in the trust, which means investment in the truth. In your case here, there was a real need of a bridges. All what I say is that the banks today cannot be trusted, as they based a lot of money on lies. So any bank competitor, with some means of independence is welcomed. Namecoin seems to approach that, but only the future will decide. Bitcoins are not a priori immune to the lies. We need trust, but once the government is suspect of lies, it dissipates. That's normal. Bruno Brent Such competitor money can help to follow the non-monopoly rule. But they can be swallowed by other money, and they are not immune against new lies per se. (risk can be diminushed by investment in real education (≠ brainwashing)). When the bandits got power, count on them to exploit (disadvantageously for *you*) any solution you could find on the economical problem. You might need to encrypt it :) 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: Privacy
Hi John, On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, thanks. Does 'sigilo' not come from the Latin word for 'sign' (sigillum)? which I would trace through its way of 'expression of' rather than the American privacy-crase. It does indeed. I believe it came to have an association with secrecy in my language due to signs used throughout history to convey information secretly. Eventually, the social norm is that secret (segredo) could imply some wrong-doing, while sigilo refers to a legitimate right to secrecy over some aspect of your life. Your translations are OK, if you use the translational ways I wanted to veryfy in their REAL format. I would not divert either into the 'secretive' side as e.g. in a confessional. Of course Americaisms raised their ugly heads in many countries (languages) - I don't buy such plagiarism for a vocabularian treasure of a language. I don't mind so much. My world-exploring culture was influenced by layers upon layers of languages (and genetics). It's not hard at all to find latin, greek, arabic, hebraic, germanic, french and english influences. The dominant culture at a given time influences more. We did the same once. The famous Japanese word arigato comes from the Portuguese obrigado, for example (meaning I am indebted to you). The religious hubbub for 'keep Christ in Christmas' does not IMPLY. Just as Santa Claus is now assigned to English-Dutch origin, when it originated from a Bishop Nicolaus whose pet-name in German spells Klaus (Claus?). (In Southern Italy I was shown a mountainvillage where - as they calim - the first Niclas bishop walked around with gifts to the poor (Near Marathea, the name escaped). Also Brindisi claims origination according to residents. Interestingly the Santa Claus craze in Europe falls usually on the evening of Dec. 5, (for Dec. 6 - the 'name-day' of St.Nicolas) - not attached to the Catholic date of Christmas. (or the Orthodox?) Yes, I have no sympathy for this. Christmas is clearly older than christianism. It was embraced and extended by christians as an act of cultural dominance. Now, if non-believers like decorated pine trees and exchanging gifts, tough luck. In any case, marry Christmas! :) Telmo. On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi John, On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: List-Friends of diverse linguistic origins: is there in another language a WORD meaning the same idiosyncrasy as what the USA p r i v a c y indeed covers? In Portuguese, the most common word is privacidade, which indeed is an anglicanism (although it's so commonly used that most people are not aware of that). But we have an older word: sigilo. It is still the one used in legal contexts. So, for example, sigilo bancário is an old recognized right to bank privacy and sigilo médico the right to privacy about your health history. There's also sigilo de justiça, which protects the privacy of people under criminal investigation. Then you have direito de imagem, which translates literally to the right to your image, and which includes norms against being surveilled with photographic equipment. I know of none in German, Hungarian, Latin, French, Russian but maybe my 'second' vocabularies are defcient. I also wonder whether in the Pre-American English-English there was something like that? (Anotrher similar US-puzzle emerged lately: the Christ in Christmas what 'faithful' souls want to preserve in the 'spirit' of the holyday, I know names for Christmas in several languages and none includes 'Christ'. Anybody increasing my knowledge?) The portuguese word for Christmas is Natal, which directly translates to birth. It is implicit who's birth it is. I suspect that the Saturnalia, that it came to replace, was a whole lot more fun. Telmo. John M -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
A proper definition of reality
All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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.
Re: A proper definition of reality
I read Edgar's book and it is entirely words and mostly assertions- no math at all. In my opinion that makes his book not credible Richard On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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. -- 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: God or not?
Bruno, No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply a definition. No faith is needed at all. Reality (defined as the totality of all that exists) self-evidently exists, therefore God defined as reality must exist. Very simple logic... I'm surprised you would disagree with it! Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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.
Re: God or not?
That makes it ill defined and useless... As reality is not well defined, so is god then... also, why use god instead of reality, the word reality is enough. Quentin 2013/12/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Bruno, No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply a definition. No faith is needed at all. Reality (defined as the totality of all that exists) self-evidently exists, therefore God defined as reality must exist. Very simple logic... I'm surprised you would disagree with it! Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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: A proper definition of reality
Richard, First you are wrong. There is some math in the book. Apparently you read only part of it. As for my book being composed of words, most books are for gosh sakes! And ALL YOUR posts consist ONLY of words with Zero math. Does that make them not credible or meaningful? Of course my book consists of words. It's the content of the words that's important. If you disagree with some of the content then voice your issues with specifics. That's the way science and reason work by discussing actual parts of the theories. Dismissing it because it doesn't meet your formatting specs is neither science nor reason, its just stating an opinion with no supporting evidence. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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.
Re: God or not?
Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT ill-defined even though all of reality is not known. The definition itself is tight, exact and meaningful. One doesn't need to know everything about reality to define it meaningfully as everything that exists. Thus defining God as Reality is well defined and meaningful. It's the only rational choice IF you need a God. Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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.
Re: A proper definition of reality
Edgar, Even what you wrote above is entirely assertion with no basis in math or physics: Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, First you are wrong. There is some math in the book. Apparently you read only part of it. As for my book being composed of words, most books are for gosh sakes! And ALL YOUR posts consist ONLY of words with Zero math. Does that make them not credible or meaningful? Of course my book consists of words. It's the content of the words that's important. If you disagree with some of the content then voice your issues with specifics. That's the way science and reason work by discussing actual parts of the theories. Dismissing it because it doesn't meet your formatting specs is neither science nor reason, its just stating an opinion with no supporting evidence. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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. -- 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
Musical Holiday present
I know music isn't considered a Science anymore today; it's considered art whatever that means. If this means flashing everybody out while entertaining them by telling them what they want to hear, sex appeal, publicity mongering etc, then I'll be happy to belong to the older group that does not limit music to this definition. A brilliant example of our times was Ted Greene who passed away 2005. He embodies the antique Greek definition of music theory and practice as a branch of science and numbers. I mistakenly posted one of his videos on the list before, but here, for Christmas, I offer you some music and thoughts of Greene emulating the Bach improvisation machine (which keeps on churning out music infinitely in Platonia, to any seeker). Improvising in a 17th century language shines a light on the man's universality in improvisation. Greene gets pretty damn close to Bach's polyphony improvised on a guitar, which I hope you enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkuo2384ZN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xXNORpbQpU And for kitchy Christmas Cheer (starts about 1:35min in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Af0_6Bv6w Happy Holidays, PGC -- 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: A proper definition of reality
On 24 Dec 2013, at 13:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. The theories can be real, even when they are wrong. You should quote the assertions said, as I have no idea what makes you think I said that theories does no belongs to reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Yes, indeed. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). If computationalism is correct, only a tiny part of arithmetic needs to be assumed. the rest belongs to numbers hallucination, but those are real and obey precise laws. While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational This is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whatever it is, cannot be entirely computational. Computationalism is monist, like Everett QM, but without assumption on the physical, which has to be derived from addition and multiplication (with computationalism at the meta-level). There is only arithmetic relation at the ontological level, and the rest are this arithmetical reality seen from different angle from inside. The angle are handled by the arithmetical self-reference theory. Bruno and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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. 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
Re: A proper definition of reality
I think that you are on the right track and I both understand and agree with your view of theory and reality all being part of the same ocean - however, there is a difference between an artist painting a picture and a painting of an artist painting a picture of himself. The former can be said to be a real person, a real artist, whose body is present objectively as a body in other people's experience and subjectively as a kind of a sensory-motive fugue of experienced qualities. The latter is a real painting, but the artist which a human observer sees in the painting has no private presence and is in fact a re-presentation within the human visual-cognitive context. The person in the painting is not really an artist, and not really a thing at all, only a chromatic medium arranged to symbolize a thing *for us*. It doesn't matter how sophisticated you make the painting - turn it into a 4D holographic movie that is a front end for a conversational bot... it's still not anything but a collection of intentionally synchronized facades. Anything which is constructed in this manner, from the outside in, whose operation is controlled by the agenda of a designer is not a 'real' presence, but a puppet or doll in which a human audience is invited to project their own empathy on, like a stuffed animal or an emoticon . I see this confusion as a form of the Pathetic Fallacy. Once we have a clear picture of the difference between a doll and a person, and can see that a person is 'real' in many more senses than the doll is, we can see that even though there is more computation going on in a doll than an atom, an atom, as a whole, natural phenomenon, is more like a person than a doll is. The doll does not know that it is a doll, but an atom is the embodiment of atomic density of sensitivity. An atom detects, attracts, repels, and bonds with other atoms to make new coherent wholes. A doll's reality, by contrast, has no more whole coherence than does one of the molecules that it is composed of. It does not detect or respond to anything as a doll, but rather as a piece of plastic. The doll quality is limited to a particular audience (human beings) and a particular sense modality (dolls don't smell or taste like people, don't usually sound or feel like people, etc, they only look like dolls of people to other people). I share also the view of the single ocean of ontological energy, however I identify that energy as simple sensory-motive experience: aesthetic participation - awareness. Within awareness the ability to reflect and invert, to exclude and objectify makes any further 'energy' or 'ontology' redundant. Sense is all that is needed. Consider that the concept of computations in the brain is also not primitively real, but is in fact part of our experience as what human beings of this era in history can understand about ourselves. We are not 'computational forms in the brain', nor can computation alone cause any form or feeling. Computation is the representation of sense - it's a doll which cannot make itself real. I see this time as a time of profound misunderstanding of the world and of consciousness. The belief in computation and mechanism is too close to the inverted image of anthropomorphic religion to be considered neutral or scientific. We should see through this information dollhouse and into deeper reality of the ontology of experiential relativity - of multisense realism...but alas we may have a long run left to go. I find myself in the ironic position of seeing the other side of the very view that made so much sense to me for so long, now it has become the obstacle to overcome. Life and death, awareness and the meaningless meshing of digital gears have become indiscernible and the whole of science and art is flushed down the toilet of mindless mathematical regurgitation. /rant Craig On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain.
Re: God or not?
On 24 Dec 2013, at 14:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No faith is needed at all for a God defined as reality itself. It's simply a definition. No faith is needed at all. Reality (defined as the totality of all that exists) self-evidently exists, therefore God defined as reality must exist. Very often totality are inconsistent. To believe that there is a totality making sense needs some act of faith. The only thing which is sure is consciousness here and now, but all content of consciousness (except thois one) is subject to doubt. Reality is not a term that we can take for granted. It is what we search for, in this or that theories. Very simple logic... I'm surprised you would disagree with it! I am afraid it is not simple at all. You seem to believe in some primitive physical reality, but that is epistemologically inconsistent with the assumption of computationalism. If we are machine, the mind- body problem get more complex as we have to justify the laws of physics from only addition and multiplication of non negative integers. Bruno Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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. 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: God or not?
On Dec 24, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT ill-defined even though all of reality is not known. The definition itself is tight, exact and meaningful. One doesn't need to know everything about reality to define it meaningfully as everything that exists. Thus defining God as Reality is well defined and meaningful. It's the only rational choice IF you need a God. Edgar, I disagree. I think there are other consistent definitions for god that are rational. They roughly correspond to the Brahman, Atman, and Devas in Hinduism. The first is mathematical truth, which in some theories is the infinite, eternal, uncreated, base and reason for all that exists. (much like Brahman). The second is the one mind, or the universal soul of which all consciousness is a part. This is an idea many scientists have come to believe is true, including Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Erwin Schrodinger, and Arnold Zuboff. It is analagous to the Atman. Third, if reality is very big (as QM, cosmic inflation, string theory, and arithmetical realism suggest), then there exist vast intelligences with access to unlimited computational resouces. These god-like minds cab explore reality through simulation, even explore others universes. They might even, if they so choose, save other beings who die or suffer in the universes they simulate, by copying them and creating afterlives for them. This bears a loose resemblence to the many devas (or demi gods) supposed to exist in Hinduism. For example, Carl Sagan said in Hinduism, that reality is the dream of a god, and that elsewhere there are an infinite number of gods each dreaming the great cosmic lotus dream. Jason On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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. -- 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: A proper definition of reality
Richard, Sure it's an assertion, just as your post is, but it has plenty of basis in physics and logic. It's a consistent part of the whole web of my theory which is quite consistent with modern physics, though not always with its current interpretations... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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.
Re: Musical Holiday present
On 24 Dec 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I know music isn't considered a Science anymore today; it's considered art whatever that means. If this means flashing everybody out while entertaining them by telling them what they want to hear, sex appeal, publicity mongering etc, then I'll be happy to belong to the older group that does not limit music to this definition. A brilliant example of our times was Ted Greene who passed away 2005. He embodies the antique Greek definition of music theory and practice as a branch of science and numbers. I mistakenly posted one of his videos on the list before, but here, for Christmas, I offer you some music and thoughts of Greene emulating the Bach improvisation machine (which keeps on churning out music infinitely in Platonia, to any seeker). Improvising in a 17th century language shines a light on the man's universality in improvisation. Greene gets pretty damn close to Bach's polyphony improvised on a guitar, which I hope you enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkuo2384ZN4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xXNORpbQpU And for kitchy Christmas Cheer (starts about 1:35min in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Af0_6Bv6w I will listen when I have more time, thanks. I think that anything belongs to science when done with the modest interrogative state of mind, and music can be done in that spirit. Then Music is also entertaining, as mathematics and biology can also be. We should not take discipline too much seriously, especially their borders. For the greeks music and math was part of the curriculum, as you know well. Happy Christmas! Bruno Happy Holidays, PGC -- 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: A proper definition of reality
Bruno, OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for thinking otherwise. However you state that This (reality is entirely computational) is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whatever it is, cannot be entirely computational. But this doesn't follow. Again you are trying to apply the results of a specialized theorem of HUMAN math to the computational logic of reality without thinking about whether it's really applicable. I agree that we are computational but that most certainly doesn't mean that reality isn't. Why would it? You seem to assume that all of reality including us is computational but that that assumption leads to a contradiction proving the premise that all of reality is computational is incorrect. But you haven't shown any such contradiction. Again the entirety of reality MUST be computational, otherwise it could never even happen as there is no way for something to happen other than it being computed. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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.
Re: A proper definition of reality
On 24 Dec 2013, at 16:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for thinking otherwise. However you state that This (reality is entirely computational) is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whatever it is, cannot be entirely computational. But this doesn't follow. Again you are trying to apply the results of a specialized theorem of HUMAN math I use only simple arithmetic in the final TOE. I use also computationalism to justify the final TOE, which by itself does not use computationalism per se. I assume that simple arithmetical propositions does not depend on human's belief. 17 is prime does not depend on me and you. It is true for all creature, thinking or not. If you pretend to doubt this, I will have serious doubt about anything you could say, as 17 is prime is for me far simple and general than any other kind of propositions. We need such type of proposition to just define what is a computation. to the computational logic of reality without thinking about whether it's really applicable. I agree that we are computational So, you would say yes to a digital doctor ? but that most certainly doesn't mean that reality isn't. Why would it? Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. I am afraid you might need to add some chapters in the second edition of your book :) You seem to assume that all of reality including us is computational but that that assumption leads to a contradiction proving the premise that all of reality is computational is incorrect. But you haven't shown any such contradiction. I have explained it many times on this list (and have defended it in my PhD, it is an old story). Scientists have no problem with this, except when they do philosophy in the coffee room ... It is not difficult to grasp, but it asks for some work. I can explain it to you if you want. It is contained in the first halve of the sane2004 paper. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Again the entirety of reality MUST be computational, otherwise it could never even happen as there is no way for something to happen other than it being computed. But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Bruno On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of
Re: A proper definition of reality
Hi Craig, First thanks for your thoughtful and detailed comments. A lot of meat there and I'll respond to some of them as I think we see the implications of the initial agreement somewhat differently. First, of course there are plenty of differences between the various categories of the very varied contents of reality. No one would argue otherwise. However most of these are differences in the way the information of them is interpreted in our mental models of reality. Both the painting and what the painting is of are just computational information of different types but our minds interpret them very differently, and of course with good reason from the evolutionary POV of our effective functioning in reality. After all we can't take sustenance from a painting of a dinner. On the other hand it is certainly theoretically, and to some extent practically, possible to simulate a complete convincing artificial reality in a human mind. And in fact that is what our minds are already doing, simulating a classical physical reality completely different than the actual information reality. But this simulation is really just additional computations of information including the information expressing how we interact with the external information reality. It's all just information computations on a fundamental level, no matter how real we experience it. In fact the very realness of our experience is just the information of that experience of realness. Our minds have developed this evolutionary mental model over millions of years because it enables us to function in reality more effectively to model it the way we do. Next, you state that you view Ontological Energy (OE) as sensory-motive experience. No, OE is something that runs the universe, that runs reality, whether or not any human is present or not. But of course human experience is participation in OE, that is precisely why human experience is real and actual, but humans only partake of something universal here. Though in another sense all forms can be said to experience each other in their interactions, something I call Xperience, which I won't go into here. Finally all dolls are really real, just as all humans are, but the reality of the doll is a doll, and the reality of the human is a human. It is what the actual information forms of a thing are that determine the characteristics of its reality, but the fact that all are actually real is because they exists as information forms in the OE of reality, because their computations are running in reality. Also don't despair as your last paragraph intimates you might. The fact that reality is computationally evolving information doesn't detract from its awesome beauty and meaningfulness in the least, it enhances it! And it's not just gears and numbers, it's the actual information of all the wonderful things that exist in this glorious world in which we exist. All things are their information only, but that information is wonderful indeed! Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists
Re: God or not?
Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist. Thus since it does exist it must be logically consistent and logically complete. True that only direct experience is certain on the most fundamental level, but it is also clear upon consistent examination that direct experience is never as it seems to be in the sense that there is clearly a deeper reality that is obscured by direct experience. If we accept that reality is logical, which it must be to exist, then all else follows and we can continue to discuss. Otherwise all would be meaningless and futile which it clearly and self-evidently is not, since if reality was not logical we could not function within it which we do to varying degrees of competence. Therefore our direct experience tells us that reality is a consistent logical structure. We can simply define what reality is = everything that exists. We don't have to search for reality since it is everywhere and cannot be escaped. What we search for is not reality, but its structural details. Lastly no, I do not believe in any primitive physical reality. Not at all. At its fundamental level reality is information running in ontological energy which is not anything physical, it's simply my name for the actuality and presence of existence which is information and realness in the present moment rather than anything physical. It is the actuality and presence of reality which manifests as a present moment in which everything, including ourselves, exists. It is the locus of reality which conveys actual reality upon the computationally evolving information forms within it. Because of its non-physical nature OE is difficult to properly describe as Lao Tse noted about the Tao which was his take on OE. Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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.
Re: God or not?
My iteration is simply this: How does this help our species, how might this all change the human condition? My interruption in this flow of rational, logical, and analytical reasoning. I am sorry if this offends, but like Dr. Suess's Who's in Whoville, The Horton Hears a Who, and not the Grinch one, I must rudely, ask,, how this could help us? Us, the pitiful, violent, human species. God, Mind, Consciousness, and all that? It needs to be asked, although, yes, some efforts are purely intellectual. I always home in, the Existential. Sincerely, Mitch -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 24, 2013 11:12 am Subject: Re: God or not? Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist. Thus since it does exist it must be logically consistent and logically complete. True that only direct experience is certain on the most fundamental level, but it is also clear upon consistent examination that direct experience is never as it seems to be in the sense that there is clearly a deeper reality that is obscured by direct experience. If we accept that reality is logical, which it must be to exist, then all else follows and we can continue to discuss. Otherwise all would be meaningless and futile which it clearly and self-evidently is not, since if reality was not logical we could not function within it which we do to varying degrees of competence. Therefore our direct experience tells us that reality is a consistent logical structure. We can simply define what reality is = everything that exists. We don't have to search for reality since it is everywhere and cannot be escaped. What we search for is not reality, but its structural details. Lastly no, I do not believe in any primitive physical reality. Not at all. At its fundamental level reality is information running in ontological energy which is not anything physical, it's simply my name for the actuality and presence of existence which is information and realness in the present moment rather than anything physical. It is the actuality and presence of reality which manifests as a present moment in which everything, including ourselves, exists. It is the locus of reality which conveys actual reality upon the computationally evolving information forms within it. Because of its non-physical nature OE is difficult to properly describe as Lao Tse noted about the Tao which was his take on OE. Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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. -- 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.
Fwd: Platonic (Leibnizian) mechanics and computationalism
On 24 Dec 2013, at 13:58, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Good to hear from you. Merry Christmas ! Merry Christmas Roger. We differ basically in the role that thinking by the One plays. My view is that thinking by the One was only a one-time event (but from the aspect of eternity) as part of creation. I think (and can explain in the comp frame) that such an event is logical and out of time and space. After that, the One has slept. He let the pre-established harmony take over. I follow Leibniz in believing that, metaphorically, on the 7th day if creation, God (the One), having created all things, sat down and thought out (from the aspect of eternity, not spacetime ) and wrote a computer program called the pre- established harmony (the PEH) that gives a map of the where and when for all future motions of the physical objects in spacetime. Hsaving done that, no more thinking by the One was necessary, and so the One sleeps, its own thinking and instructions for actions (the PEH) having been done. Since the PEH was written from the aspect of eternity, we still have free will, as the One, in writing its computer program, would know (but not force) what actions we choose to perform. This is our critical difference.You seem to have no mechanism (such as the PEH, which includes the actions and perceptions in time by the One) to cause physical events to happen. The PEH is in the true relation between the numbers, they emulate *all* programs. The key point is that our reality is not one of those computations. It is, in some sense (explained in my posts and papers), *all* computations, which give rise to some apparent non computable aspect in nature, and theology. Bruno Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 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: A proper definition of reality
Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. *Eppur si muove!* Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within
Re: God or not?
On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and logically complete if it is computational (for which there is overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist. Thus since it does exist it must be logically consistent and logically complete. The sigma_1 reality (set of all true existence formula ExP(x) with P decidable) is consistent and logically complete. But to reason in it, we still have to believe in something bigger. So OK for the outer reality, and you can define it by the UD or just the axiom of arithlmetic (weak, without induction). But physics, theology, etc. needs, from inside, richer believer, who have faith in some induction axioms. The total physical reality emerge from the dreams of those machine (relative number). True that only direct experience is certain on the most fundamental level, but it is also clear upon consistent examination that direct experience is never as it seems to be in the sense that there is clearly a deeper reality that is obscured by direct experience. I agree. Then with comp, it can't be a physical reality. That one is only the border of a vaster thing. If we accept that reality is logical, which it must be to exist, Illogical things can exist to, at some higher level. We might dream. then all else follows and we can continue to discuss. Otherwise all would be meaningless and futile which it clearly and self-evidently is not, since if reality was not logical we could not function within it which we do to varying degrees of competence. Therefore our direct experience tells us that reality is a consistent logical structure. No problem. With comp the outer reality is logical, indeed arithmetical. But the internal realities are more complex, they escape the logical, the physical, the mathematical, somehow. We can simply define what reality is = everything that exists. Hmm, that is already too much set theoretical for me. At the outer level, only 0 exist, and its successors, perhaps. The interesting existence are the objects in the stable or not dream of the numbers. My point is that once we assume computationalism explicitly, we have not much choice in the matter (with the usual Occam). It makes also comp experimentally falsifiable (with some nuances). We don't have to search for reality since it is everywhere and cannot be escaped. That's consciousness. Reality is more like God, we are ignorant and can only hope to approach it. What we search for is not reality, but its structural details. We need to make our basic assumption clear, and then reason interrogatively, if we want to do science. We have not solved the reality problem, and many people are even not aware that the assumption of a physical universe is part of Aristotle theology. Lastly no, I do not believe in any primitive physical reality. Not at all. At its fundamental level reality is information running in ontological energy which is not anything physical, You might avoid the term energy in this case. It can be misleading as energy is a typical physical notion. it's simply my name for the actuality and presence of existence which is information and realness in the present moment rather than anything physical. That is a bit fuzzy. It seems to be the indexical personal existence. It is the actuality and presence of reality which manifests as a present moment in which everything, including ourselves, exists. ourselves might not be that clear, especially from someone wanting to not use the human predicate. It is the locus of reality which conveys actual reality upon the computationally evolving information forms within it. Because of its non-physical nature OE is difficult to properly describe as Lao Tse noted about the Tao which was his take on OE. Lao-Tse is good. I think comp makes precise some of your tenets. In my long thesis I provide an arithmetical interpretation of Lao-Tse, and you can look at my Plotinus paper for an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus. All mystics seems to be close to the discourse of the universal machine. We have the tools to already ask their opinion on all this. Put in another way, once you assume comp, you can use computer science to use math in the field. It makes things precise, but also constructive and testable. Of course that asks for work. Bruno Edgar On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Dear Edgar, Welcome to the group! It is always wonderful to have new perspectives and ideas added to the discussion. I have a question. When we talk about how reality is clearly a computational process, and it runs against pure information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe, is that computation one that is equivalent to a single light-like foliation of the physical universe or are you summing over all possible foliations? (A light-like foliation is the surface of a light-cone and thus there is a clear chain of causal events.) It seems to me that it is a mistake to assume that there is a single Turing Machine equivalent computation involved in our universe as it can be easily proven that gravity and accelerations (the same thing via the principle of equivalence) prevent the possibility of a single light-like foliation that captures all events in our universe. Therefore if we are to consider a computational notion of reality, it cannot be singular. It has to be many computations: one for each possible foliation. On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to impose on reality. My approach is to closely examine reality and then try to figure out how it works and what ITS innate rules and structures are. I would probably agree with much of what you say, if you were saying it about human logico-mathematical structures, but the logico-mathematical structure of reality is not bound by human rules. It runs according to its own logic and science is the process of trying to figure out what those rules are and how they work... For example, reality is clearly a computational process, and it runs against pure information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe. There is simply no other way current information states of reality could result from previous ones other than by a computational process. How that computational process works must be determined by examining reality itself. We may try to make sense of it in terms of traditional human math theory, but when there are differences then reality always trumps human math theory, which applies to human math rather than reality's logico-mathematical system. Edgar 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 a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/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
Re: A proper definition of reality
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. Really? Discovery channel would disagree with you ;-) The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_cicadas All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. ? Perhaps you may choose to have a closer look at UDA and Bruno's other work, as you seem to sometimes be leaning towards it. It can take awhile to wrap ones head around First Person Indeterminacy and its implications, given comp hypothesis. A better understanding of it would, even if you disagree, avoid unfruitful discussions with Reality is such and such claims, as his work doesn't make those claims, nor seeks to support or negate that type of claim. To put it roughly from my perspective, Bruno's work concerns examining consequences of mechanist hypothesis against the backdrop of the discovery of universal machines and is not philosophical in the sense of defending some interpretation of Reality over others. True, he will argue that this or that ontology is not compatible with comp, but to mix this up with Philosophy as in defending an ontological stance, is to judge too quickly, even though understandable. PGC *Eppur si muove!* Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of organisms, but the fact that the results of these computations are conscious is due to the self-manifesting immanent nature of reality as I explained in more detail in a post yesterday Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform instead. John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe not. I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he was not. To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness. 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: Minds, Machines and Gödel
Liz, No, that doesn't make Reality subject to the halting problem. The halting problem is when a computer program is trying to reach some independently postulated result and may or may not be able to reach it. Reality doesn't have any problem like this. It just computes the logical results of the evolution of the current information state of the universe. There are no independently postulated states that aren't directly computed by reality which reality then attempts to reach (prove). Edgar On Dec 21, 2013, at 3:26 PM, LizR wrote: Reality is analogous to a running software program. Godel's Theorem does not apply. A human could speculate as to whether any particular state of Reality could ever arise computationally and it might be impossible to determine that, but again that has nothing to do with the actual operation of Reality,since it is only a particular internal mental model of that reality. Wouldn't that make reality susceptible to the halting problem? ...hello, is anybody there? Why have all the stars gone 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Craig, All this is explained in my book on Reality available on Amazon. The key insight to several of your questions is covered in Part IV: Mind and Reality. Basically the world we think we live in with shapes, colors, flavors and feelings etc. (various types of qualia) is actually a model of the actual external reality constructed in our minds. The actual external reality has none of these qualia and consists of evolving information only. When what mind adds to its internal model of reality is identified and subtracted all that remains is discovered to be an evolving information structure and thus that is the actual nature of external reality. When this is understood the answers to most of your 5 points becomes clear. As to the nature of consciousness, the so called 'Hard Problem' there is a straightforward answer to that given also. I won't cover it in detail right now but basically it has to do with a deeper understanding of reality and how it self-manifests as opposed to waiting passively to be made conscious. The modern misunderstanding of consciousness, that it's something that arises in human brains, can be compared to the ancient theory of vision in which it was mistakenly thought that vision involved the eyes shining light on external objects. That erroneous model still exists with respect to consciousness in which it is mistakenly thought that consciousness consists of brains shining consciousness on external objects. The truth in both cases is that it is external reality that produces both light and the actual real presence of things in the present moment and both vision and consciousness are simply opening and participating in this self-manifestation of reality by an observer who then interprets the information content according to his own nature. I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read my book which covers Mind and Reality and explains what Consciousness is quite thoroughly. Edgar On Dec 21, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Bruno, Thanks for your comments. However I think you are coming at Reality from the POV of human logico-mathematical theory whose results you are trying to impose on reality. My approach is to closely examine reality and then try to figure out how it works and what ITS innate rules and structures are. I would probably agree with much of what you say, if you were saying it about human logico-mathematical structures, but the logico-mathematical structure of reality is not bound by human rules. It runs according to its own logic and science is the process of trying to figure out what those rules are and how they work... For example, reality is clearly a computational process, and it runs against pure information which is the fundamental stuff of the universe. There is simply no other way current information states of reality could result from previous ones other than by a computational process. How that computational process works must be determined by examining reality itself. We may try to make sense of it in terms of traditional human math theory, but when there are differences then reality always trumps human math theory, which applies to human math rather than reality's logico-mathematical system. Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:52, 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) Arithmetic is not just numbers, but numbers + some laws (addition and multiplication). but is a running logical structure analogous to software When you have the laws (addition and multiplication), it can be shown that a tiny part of arithmetic implement all possible computations (accepting Church thesis). Without Church thesis, you can still prove that that tiny part of arithmetic emulates (simulate exactly) all Turing (or all known) computations. that continually computes the current state of the universe. You mean the physical universe. Have you read my papers or posts? if we are machine, there is no physical reality that we can assume. the whole of physics must be derived from arithmetic. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. It depends on your initial assumption. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. The computational reality is a tiny part of arithmetic. Logic is just a tool to explore such realities. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, Most scientists do not believe this, and indeed criticize my work for seeming to go in that direction. Then term like reality and mathematical are very fuzzy. Now, if we are machine, then it can be shown that for the ontology we need arithmetic, or any equivalent Turing universal system, and we *cannot* assume anything more (that is the key non obvious point). Then, it is shown that the physical reality is: 1) an internal aspect of arithmetic 2) despite this, it is vastly bigger than arithmetic and even that any conceivable mathematics. That is why I insist that the reality we can access to is not mathematical, but theological. It contains many things provably escaping all possible sharable mathematics. That arithmetic is (much) bigger viewed from inside than viewed from outside is astonishing, and is a sort of Skolem paradox (not a contradiction, just a weirdness). 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. I disagree, with all my respect. Even arithmetic escapes logic. It is logic which is just a branch of math, but math, even just arithmetic, escapes logic. Arithmetical truth escapes all effective theories (theories with checkable proofs). After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, I really do not believe this. Except for Tegmark and Schmidhuber, I doubt any scientist believes this. But its is a consequence of computationalism, for the ontology. Yet, the physical is purely epistemological, and go beyond mathematics. I show that all universal machine, when believeing in enough induction axioms, can discovered this by introspection only. has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. I suggest you read my sane paper.: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html It explains the present moment by using Gödel form of indexical (with explicit fixed points), including the non
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Mitch, No, my theory comes not from those gentlemen, but (at least hopefully) from reality itself. As to where reality's 'computer network' exists see my previous reply to Mitch where I explain in a fair amount of detail trying to answer his excellent question... Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 2:04 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Your theory comes from Von Neumann, and Chaitin, and Wolfram, does it not, Edgar? That everything is a program or cellular automata, and in the beginning was a program. Following along, what is this Logic comprised of (sort of like SPK's query) is it electrons, is it virtual particles, is it field lines? Where doth the logical structure sleep? In Planck Cells? I apologize if my questions annoy, but where is the computer network that computes the current state of the universe. Can we get MIT physicist Seth Lloyd to shake a stick or a laser pointer, or otherwise, display, where this abacus dwells? Thanks, Mitch -Original Message- From: Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Dec 22, 2013 1:36 pm Subject: Re: Bruno's mathematical reality Dear Edger, Where does the fire come from that animates the logic? 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. -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Brent, I don't avoid infinities but Reality does. When one understands what infinities are and how they are defined as an unending and uncompletable process of addition it is quite clear that nothing physical can be infinite. As I've posted in other replies Reality is a computational system like running software. Godel and the implications for the Principia don't apply to the logico-mathematical computational system of reality, they apply only to human logico-mathematical systems. The logico-mathematical system of Reality simply computes one state of the universe from the previous. There are no statements out of the blue that are subject to proof which what Godel, Halting, Russell and Whitehead are all about. It's like trying to apply these to a piece of software, there is no relevance, in this case reality's software Edgar On Dec 21, 2013, at 5:14 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/20/2013 3:52 PM, 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 the difficulties of Russell and Whitehead, and Godel's incompleteness theorem I thought the idea that mathematics was a subset of logic had been laid to rest. 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'm interested in how you avoid infinities. Do you eschew even potential infinities? Brent 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. -- 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.
A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time
All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different clock times within the same shared present moment. Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface. What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense or science. 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.
Re: Posting problems
Yes, of course it is set to that. We'll see if this gets posted Edgar On Dec 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, I'm using gmail and it works flawlessly. Just check when replying that the address is set to everything-list@googlegroups.com (it should normally default to that as the Reply-To header is set to that address). Regards, Quentin 2013/12/23 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net I've set option of getting all posts as emails which seems to be working OK I think. But when I reply to a post via my Mac mail it never seems to get posted to the group. Also I tried starting several new topics via Mac mail by simply using a new subject line however none of either type of post ever seems to show up on the group website. I sent 8-9 posts via MacMail over 24 hours ago and none have appeared on the group website. Can anyone tell me how to fix this please? It works on Yahoo Groups just fine. Is anyone here using their email to receive and reply to the group OK? 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Stephen, A very important point which I cover extensively in my book, but rather subtle to grasp. Reality clearly exists. There is something really here now and actual and happening. The totality of that is defined as reality and I refer to its 'stuff' (non-physical but real and actual) as an entity I call 'ontological energy'. It is somewhat similar to the ancient concept of Tao. This ontological energy is originally formless, similar to a generalized quantum vacuum, and contains the possibilities of all information forms which can arise within it. Similar to a formless sea of water whose nature determines what forms of waves, currents and ripples which can arise within it. The universe, at its fundamental level, is all the information forms that are actualized within ontological energy, beginning with the big bang, and which continue to evolve according to the laws of nature (the logico-mathematics of reality which we have been discussing). Thus the complete picture of reality consists of the original formless sea (logical space) of ontological energy and all the evolving forms which exist within it. These forms, everything in the universe, are pure information only and have no self-substances other than the ontological energy in which they arise. Just as the self-substances of all wave forms in water is only water. Now to answer your question, it is the fact that the information forms are forms that exist in the sea of reality (the ontological energy) that makes them real and actual, and the fact that happening is one of the fundamental aspects of ontological energy that gives them the fire of life as they continually computationally evolve to manifest the real actual universe. This is why the information structures of reality are real and actual but those of computer software simulating something is not, because they run in reality rather than some silicon computer The universe can/must be considered a living entity in the sense that it is self-animated from within. There is no external force that moves it and there could not be since by definition it includes everything. Therefore the universe is a living entity, and our life and the life of all things comes from the fact that we are information forms, programs, that run within reality. This is the source of the 'fire' that animates the information Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Edger, Where does the fire come from that animates the logic? 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. -- 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
Re: A proper definition of reality
Cowboy, The fact that cicadas tend to emerge at 17 year intervals has nothing at all to do with the fact that 17 is a prime number. It's simply counting. If I find 17 cents in my pocket that's just counting - nothing at all to do with primes or prime theory. That should be obvious... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Dear Edgar, Have you considered reflexivity based theories of consciousness, such as thus proposed by Greg Zuckermanhttp://www.cs.yale.edu/publications/techreports/tr1383.pdfand Louis H. Kauffmanhttp://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/hvf/papers/kauffman05eigenform.pdf? (Kauffman does not explicitly mention consciousness in his work, but the connection is obvious!) On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of organisms, but the fact that the results of these computations are conscious is due to the self-manifesting immanent nature of reality as I explained in more detail in a post yesterday Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform instead. John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe not. I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he was not. To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness. 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 a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Stephen, Thanks for the welcome to the group. It's certainly far superior to most and the members should be commended! To address your questions. No, the computations of the universe exist don't run in a physical reality. Physical reality emerges from these computations as they are interpreted in human, and other organism's, mental models of reality. Light cones are important but emerge FROM computational reality as dimensionalization emerges from quantum events. (See my post on the quantum aspects of my work in a separate topic of that title). Light cones are how we visually see and confirm the 4-dimensional hyperspherical geometry of our universe. We actually see all 4-dimensions all the time as we look down our light cones. Our 4-dimensional universe lies clear before us. No tricks needed! Therefore your gravity=acceleration argument (which is of course true) doesn't apply. There is a single self-consistent universal computational system at the information level. Different relativistic views of this reality, with different light cones, are just different ways different observers view and interpret the dimensional aspects of this single universal computational reality in their respective frames as they emerge from quantum events. Best, Edgar 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.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. the question is still ambiguous, To repeat, if the question is ambiguous it is because it contains the words the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and those are NOT John Clark's words, they are Bruno Marchal's words!! Does this mean Bruno Marchal retracts the words because they are meaningless? John Clark thinks the words have meaning but apparently Bruno Marchal disagrees and maintains that Bruno Marchal was talking gibberish. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? John K Clark -- 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: A proper definition of reality
On Dec 24, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico- mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. This seems incompatible with what you say just below. If there is some computation in reality that terminates when it factors a number into exactly two factors then when it terminates depends on the first prime it runs across. The course taken by these platonic programs is affected by number theoretical truth. No humans needed. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? Euclid Computers Recursive functions Humans Cicadas I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. You need to inspect the paper Bruno cited in more detail. It sounds strange, for sure: how is digital physics self-contradictory? Yet It is the inevitable conclusion of the computational theory of mind. It took me a while to see this myself, but I think I understand it now and can help you if you have questions after reading it. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. Eppur si muove! In the ontology Bruno uses nothing is fundamentally non-deterministic, it only arises in first-person perspectives (which also happen to be the foundation of physics). Jason Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw Bruno give. John K Clark -- 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: A proper definition of reality
There is also a 13 year cicada. Is it a coincidence they cycle their mass appearances on large prime numbers? It is thought that this strategy prevents predators from tuning their population cycles to those of the cicadas. Jason On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Cowboy, The fact that cicadas tend to emerge at 17 year intervals has nothing at all to do with the fact that 17 is a prime number. It's simply counting. If I find 17 cents in my pocket that's just counting - nothing at all to do with primes or prime theory. That should be obvious... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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. -- 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
Hi Edgar, On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stephen, Thanks for the welcome to the group. It's certainly far superior to most and the members should be commended! :-) To address your questions. No, the computations of the universe exist don't run in a physical reality. Physical reality emerges from these computations as they are interpreted in human, and other organism's, mental models of reality. I would agree! There is not any separate hardware that the computations could be said to run on in any absolute sense; that is the point that I was asking about! The reality emerges from the computations, yes. But there is something interesting here that can be learned from the concept of a virtual machine that is used in real world computers . A virtual machine is a program that acts as if it where hardware for some other program. So we have the idea that computations can see each other as hardware and thus the notion that the computations of the universe do run on a physical reality if and only if we restrict the notion of computations of the universe into subsets that can not be merged or cleanly dovetailed into each other. Light cones are important but emerge FROM computational reality as dimensionalization emerges from quantum events. (See my post on the quantum aspects of my work in a separate topic of that title). Ah, that will not work if your concept of computation generates the causal relations between observed events. As I pointed out previously, the universe we observe is not one that can be said to have a causal ordering that all observers (regardless of their frames of reference) can agree upon. This may seem to be a crazy and even obviously wrong statement to make, but think about it. Any time we think of events in the physical world and their ordering (in time) we have to consider the inertial frame of the observers and we notice that there will always be observers (with different inertial frames) that cannot agree on the order of events. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Therefore, when considering the usual notion of the computation of the universe, we can not assume a single computation as such is equivalent to a single sequence of computational events or a string of numbers. There is a different view of computation that does not involve strings of numbers of sequences of events that I am investigating. See: http://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/glc-actors-what-are-for-and-why-are-interesting/ Light cones are how we visually see and confirm the 4-dimensional hyperspherical geometry of our universe. We actually see all 4-dimensions all the time as we look down our light cones. Our 4-dimensional universe lies clear before us. No tricks needed! Umm, we disagree! Therefore your gravity=acceleration argument (which is of course true) doesn't apply. There is a single self-consistent universal computational system at the information level. Different relativistic views of this reality, with different light cones, are just different ways different observers view and interpret the dimensional aspects of this single universal computational reality in their respective frames as they emerge from quantum events. Your idea might work if you ignore the fact that quantum mechanics does not allow all events to be uniquely ordered in a global way. Information of positions is generally incompatible with information of momenta. If you are only considering position information, cool. One can obtain a single 4-d universe that is computable by a single computation. But that is a static universe and we don't live in it. Our universe evolves. Objects in it have measurable momenta, spin, charge and positions. Computations of it cannot be said to be uniquely defined into a single string. The same argument holds for the reverse: The universe as a computation is *many* distinct computations, not just one. Best, Edgar 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,
Re: A proper definition of reality
Jason, Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an even number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant? If you meant factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that. It's likely something that only human mathematicians do. Can you think of a process in non-human nature? In my view reality computes only against actual processes. These you mention Euclid Computers Recursive functions Humans Cicadas are all examples of human not reality math except for cicadas, but there is no evidence cicadas have any concept of prime numbers, they just count up to 17. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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.
Re: A proper definition of reality
On Dec 24, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an even number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant? Yes. If you meant factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that. What, in your mind, determines what programs reality executes and which ones it does not? It's likely something that only human mathematicians do. What about alien mathematicians? Do you think a number is not prime until a mathematician tries to factor a number and fails? Can you think of a process in non-human nature? Before you asked for naturally occurring examples; I consider humans and computers to be natural objects. In my view reality computes only against actual processes. These you mention Euclid Computers Recursive functions Humans Cicadas are all examples of human not reality math except for cicadas, but there is no evidence cicadas have any concept of prime numbers, they just count up to 17. Natural selection chose the periods to be prime numbers because of their inherent properties. This happened long before humans entered the scene. You should see my recent posts concerning mathematical truth and primes in the how can a grown man be atheist thread. Jason Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
Re: God or not?
On 12/24/2013 5:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Quentin, I clearly stated IF a God is desired THEN defining it is reality itself is the only logical choice. I'm fine just calling it reality, but lots of people (Roger e.g.) need a God. And it is NOT ill-defined even though all of reality is not known. The definition itself is tight, exact and meaningful. I don't necessarily disagree. One could define reality by saying, THIS! accompanied by a sufficiently sweeping gesture. But definition needs make definite distinctions. So are dreams, numbers, mathematics, chairs, events, electrons all equally real in your ontology? Are some more fundamental than others? How do deal with theories of Everettian relative states vs randomness vs mulitiple universes? One doesn't need to know everything about reality to define it meaningfully as everything that exists. No, but you need an operational criterion to decide whether a give thing exists, e.g. does Sherlock Holmes exist? Is there a 1000 digit prime number in the decimal representation of pi? Does it exist? Brent Thus defining God as Reality is well defined and meaningful. It's the only rational choice IF you need a God. 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.
Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a common present moment. -- 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.
It's about time!
This comes over 60 years too late http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/alan-turing-enigma-code-breaker-and-computer-pioneer-wins-royal-pardon.html?hp. But at least it came. -- 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: God or not?
How does defining God as the Universe get us anywhere? Why not just call the Universe the Universe? PS What's all this dissing of Zues and Odin? Thor promised to rid the world of frost giants. I don't see any frost giants... -- 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: It's about time!
Without checking your link, I hope that's Alan Turing being forgiven. (I've been ranting about this on various forums. I guess I overlooked this one...) On 25 December 2013 10:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: This comes over 60 years too latehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/alan-turing-enigma-code-breaker-and-computer-pioneer-wins-royal-pardon.html?hp. But at least it came. -- 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: It's about time!
PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-) Alan Turing gets a royal pardon And about bloody time! (Virtually) win the second world war and (virtually) invent computers, be driven to suicide by the police and they've kept his pardon back all this time. FFS, you dare to wait this long to pardon him for something that hasn't been a crime for god knows how long - the man who rewrite the history of the 20th century for the better - you aren't worthy to kiss his boots, you bunch of Excuse me. [image: :oops:] (As you can see I even got ungrammatical, which in my case indicates strong passions...) On 25 December 2013 10:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Without checking your link, I hope that's Alan Turing being forgiven. (I've been ranting about this on various forums. I guess I overlooked this one...) On 25 December 2013 10:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: This comes over 60 years too latehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/alan-turing-enigma-code-breaker-and-computer-pioneer-wins-royal-pardon.html?hp. But at least it came. -- 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: Privacy
I trust everyone is celebrating Newton-mas today? One of the greatest men of the past 2000 years, without whom we would probably still be ignorant peasants ruled by clergy and kings... -- 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: Minds, Machines and Gödel
I have probably missed this - I don't have time to engage as much as I would like with this list (or any others) - but where or how are these computations taking place? -- 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: God or not?
-- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Vu Le 24 déc. 2013 19:44, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw Bruno give. After going to the store and bought your new eyes, you'll notice I already did. Quentin John K Clark -- 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.
How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.
Liz states that Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a common present moment. but this is incorrect. Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I explain how this works. It is well known, though little understood, that everything without exception continually travels through spacetime at the speed of light according to its own comoving clock. I call this the STc Principle. This is a well known consequence of special relativity but actually as I point out in my book this is an even more fundamental Principle than Special Relativity and Special Relativity is properly a consequence of it and can be derived from it. What the STc Principle says is that the total velocity through both space and through time of everything without exception is = to the speed of light. This is the reason that time slows on a clock moving with some relative spatial velocity, as Special Relativity tells us. It also demonstrates that the speed of light is properly understood as the speed of TIME. That's what c really is. Light just happens to move entirely in space according to its own comoving clock, therefore its entire spacetime velocity is in space only. Anyway it is precisely this STc Principle that puts both the arrow of time and a privileged present moment on a firm physical basis. Why? Because it requires that everything must be in one particular place in spacetime (the present moment) and moving at the speed of light (the arrow of time). So exactly contrary to your statement, it is precisely special relativity, properly understood, that puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis. This insight simultaneously solves two of the big problems of the philosophy of science, the source of the arrow of time, and the reason for a common present moment, though no one seems to have recognized this prior to my exposition in 1997 in my paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. 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.
Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz states that Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a common present moment. but this is incorrect. Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I explain how this works. It is well known, though little understood, that everything without exception continually travels through spacetime at the speed of light according to its own comoving clock. Why are clocks needed? Isn't it enough to say everything travels through spacetime at c? In other words, in one year, every object traces a path one light year long through coordinate time. I call this the STc Principle. Does STc stand for something? This is a well known consequence of special relativity but actually as I point out in my book this is an even more fundamental Principle than Special Relativity and Special Relativity is properly a consequence of it and can be derived from it. What the STc Principle says is that the total velocity through both space and through time of everything without exception is = to the speed of light. Right, this follows from using a Euclidean coordinate system instead of a Minkowski coordinate system. This is the reason that time slows on a clock moving with some relative spatial velocity, as Special Relativity tells us. It also explains clock desynchronization and length contraction. It also demonstrates that the speed of light is properly understood as the speed of TIME. That's what c really is. Light just happens to move entirely in space according to its own comoving clock, therefore its entire spacetime velocity is in space only. Hence why matter contains so much energy: 1 gram of anti-matter (which travels in the opposite direction through the dimension of time) when it hits 1 gram of matter, converts into 2 grams worth of light. Matter trades its velocity through time for velocity through space. Anyway it is precisely this STc Principle that puts both the arrow of time and a privileged present moment on a firm physical basis. Why? Because it requires that everything must be in one particular place in spacetime (the present moment) and moving at the speed of light (the arrow of time). The present moment is only a three dimensional slice through 4-dimensional spacetime. Two co-moving observers exist in different presents, even if they are in the same place and same time. Are you familiar with Reitdijk-Putnam argument ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument ) ? I think relativity of simultaneity is proof that there is no such thing as an objective moving present moment. Thus, the perceived flow of time can only be a construction (illusion) within the mind's of the observers. This is what I (and I think Liz) find it confusing when you say all observers exist in the same present. The only way I can interpret that sentence to be true is if you consider the entire block time to be a single present moment, but this is a somewhat radical redefinition of the word present. So exactly contrary to your statement, it is precisely special relativity, properly understood, that puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis. Let me ask you a few questions which might help me understand your view: Do you believe past moments in time still exist? Do you think future moments in time already exist? Is Julius Caesar experiencing Ancient Rome (in some location in space-time 2000 ly away? This insight simultaneously solves two of the big problems of the philosophy of science, the source of the arrow of time, This is solved more-or-less by statistics, I think. I don't see how whether past moments in time continue to exist (or not) serves as any justification or explanation for the arrow of time. (What would change regarding the arrow of time if past moments continued to exist?) and the reason for a common present moment, I think the notion of a common present moment is only a loose convention, agreed upon only by some limited group of contemporaries. Other contemporaries, are no less wrong or justified to believe that their (different) time is the present. though no one seems to have recognized this prior to my exposition in 1997 in my paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. Do you have a link? 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: God or not?
Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and Everything Else that is or may exist? On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 4:20 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Pantheism, Why didn't you just come out and say so? :-D -Original Message- From: Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 24-Dec-2013 13:16:11 + Subject: God or not? All, The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago 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. -- 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.
