Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Chris, Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called 'happening' drives it... Thanks to the Church's thesis, computing is a simple conceptual notion, like being prime or even. reality is the mystery, not computing. Reality itself compute can make sense if you define reality by the arithmetical reality, but the happenings are only due to the internal first person points of view. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? What is doing the imagining? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 16 Jan 2014, at 05:10, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? What is doing the imagining? The universal numbers. Relatively to a finite number of universal numbers, above their substitution level, from the local approximate (yet Turing complete) physical laws, to the boss, the colleagues, the member of the family, the laptop, and the jumping spider, hidden in the kitchen. Relatively to all universal numbers and all their computations, below their substitution level. To undersatnd this, all you need is to conceive that you might survive witha digital brain, and that statement like 17 is prime are true independently of you. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am computational, and thus comp is true, but comp entails the existence of many non computational things, so everything cannot be a computational things. You seem to ignore the FPI, and you seem to use implicitly some body/mind identify thesis which are not consistent with computationalism. Bruno In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
There are an awful lot of hidden assumptions implied by that first explicit assumption imagine a world in which everything is computational. I've asked for clarification from Edgar, but I won't hold my breath while I wait. On 16 January 2014 22:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am computational, and thus comp is true, but comp entails the existence of many non computational things, so everything cannot be a computational things. You seem to ignore the FPI, and you seem to use implicitly some body/mind identify thesis which are not consistent with computationalism. Bruno In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it. THe UD will emulate all mind states. This we can say (assuming comp). But he will never emulate the physical reality/world, a priori, unless the physical world is little, finite, essentially material or substantial, constitutes my only brain, ... which prevents me from saying yes to any doctor. I don't know what is a world, to be honest. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 16 January 2014 13:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it. I would like to know what Edgar's answer is. Obviously Edgar's theory doesn't use the UD, because he has clearly stated that he thinks comp is false. He even started a thread called Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO) ! OK, I admit that going on past behaviour I shouldn't expect a sensible answer from Edgar. I know I'm most likely to some snide comment telling me it's too obvious to explain, or insinuating that I'm a moron for asking. But even so, I think the polite and courteous thing to do is to keep asking questions, and I live in hope that I will get proper answers from Edgar, and that eventually, if every step of his argument is clarified sufficiently, it will either start making sense to me, or stop making sense to him, as the case may be. So, my original questions were, what is the nature of a world in which everything is computational? For example, is it physical or abstract or something else? (And if so, what?) Does it have physical computational machinery of some sort (like CY compact manifolds), or if not, what *does*it have? All this (and probably a lot more) needs to be explained before one can start to imagine a world in which everything is computational. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Chris, Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called 'happening' drives it... Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? What is doing the imagining? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Edgar, How about this twist on your claim: Reality is isomorphic to the computations and its dynamics (thermodynamics) drives it. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called 'happening' drives it... Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? What is doing the imagining? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 17 January 2014 03:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Chris, Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called 'happening' drives it... That isn't an answer to *anything* I've asked. Naming something doesn't explain what it is. I thought you'd have enough pride in your own ideas, if nothing else, to at least try to give a proper answer to the questions I asked, but you have simply chosen to ignore them. Let me repeat them, in case you missed them, and see if you have the intellectual honesty to at least attempt to explain yourself, for once. *I would like to know what Edgar's answer is. Obviously Edgar's theory doesn't use the UD, because he has clearly stated that he thinks comp is false. He even started a thread called Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO) ! * *OK, I admit that going on past behaviour I shouldn't expect a sensible answer from Edgar. I know I'm most likely to some snide comment telling me it's too obvious to explain, or insinuating that I'm a moron for asking. But even so, I think the polite and courteous thing to do is to keep asking questions, and I live in hope that I will get proper answers from Edgar, and that eventually, if every step of his argument is clarified sufficiently, it will either start making sense to me, or stop making sense to him, as the case may be.* *So, my original questions were, what is the nature of a world in which everything is computational? For example, is it physical or abstract or something else? (And if so, what?) Does it have physical computational machinery of some sort (like CY compact manifolds), or if not, whatdoes it have?* *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Actually I can't be bothered asking Edgar the same questions again and getting no answer again (or a non-answer like the one he just gave Chris, while carefully ignoring me). If he wants to ignore my questions, I shouldnt waste time asking. So I have deleted my post restating the questions I asked before, and have zero expectation that the person Brent said was courteous, but everyone else seems to think is a troll, will have the intellectual honesty or pride in his own ideas to answer a few simple questions about those ideas. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a measurement event. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Edgar, There is another way to get particle property conservation: Particles that happen to have the same properties have a symmetry that is unique to QM: the exchange symmetryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_interaction. Study it carefully. :-) This symmetry does not require a singular collection of properties to be dimensional or inherently existing. It just says that if a pair of particles are indistinguishable (for some observer!) there will exist a variation in the wavefunction of the system made of the combined pair. If that variation is of a positive character, the particles will be Bosons (relative to each other). If the variation is of a negative character, the particles will be Fermions (relative to each other). There are other possible variances that I will not get into, but the upshot of this symmetry is that it acts to group particles that have the same properties into groups and it can be argued that charge, spin and mass properties flow from that grouping. There is no need for an external computational space or system to do the job. I do agree a little bit with this that your wrote: But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. But for other reasons. Any illusion that there exists a classical 'physics' world out there that we are somehow floating in is a figment of our imaginations. The universe is KNOWN to not be classical. Can we bury that corpse already? OTOH, I do agree that space-time is a construction that could be considered as you describe: continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events If the quantum interaction process ends, the particular events vanish. What we observe as space-time is merely the photons that carry the information about the events and so we have an illusion of persistence of events that could lead one to imagine that there exists a global present moment. What is interesting is that the evolution of the phase of a QM system IS a computation in the sense that it is a transformation of information! WE do get something like a computational system that is generating space-time and all events in it, but if we treat it as a single computer time vanishes. This is known from study of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation: H=0. We can obtain a universe where any observer will have the experience of time IF and only IF we do not use a single wave function for the universe and thus do not require a single computer to perform the computation. We can associate separate QM wave functions to each and every point of the space-time manifold and use the evolution of the phase of these as the local clock of those points on the manifold. We end up with an infinite number of computers generating space-time, not one. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/15/2014 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a measurement event. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
I would like to know what Edgar means by a computational world before I worry about deriving the properties of particles. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? What is doing the imagining? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 16 January 2014 17:10, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations? What is doing the imagining? I assume we get onto that question higher up the chain of reasoning. Let's start at the very beginning... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 03 Jan 2014, at 19:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe. Is that possible? The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this). Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp Dt) , know (Bp p), observe (Bp Dt p), feel (Bp Dt p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations. You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a confusion between two of those number's points of view. I would even say that the *theological* errors comes from confusion between those points of view, and their star extension, when translated in G*. Incompleteness not only forces the division between truth and provable, captured by the star extensions, but it forbids to the correct or sound machine/numbers to confuse the hypostases. Subjective time appears in Bp p, and in Bp p Dt, (and in B^n p p D^m t. If n m, then we get a corresponding quantization, so the arithmetical quantizations are graded, and I hope to find some arithmetical Temperley Algebra there ..., that would be a path in the explanation of some physical space) Physical time? Open problem. The 3p is a block reality, which does not even refer to any notion of time or space, or consciousness, or whatever. But from the average 1p discourses of machines relatively implemented (in the computer science sense) in that arithmetical reality, taking into account the FPI (by the Dt, actually) and the first person (and its umbilical link with truth, by the p) you can see or understand that from inside things are quite dynamical, and full of sense. The consciousness of the sense might be a semantical fixed point. Universal numbers are windows through which the Arithmetical Reality can explore Itself. The price is that it can lost itself and get tricked in infinitely many ways. To sum up the 3p reality is certainly a sort of block reality, but the many 1p realities, naturally associated to the 3p arithmetization of meta-arithmetic (Gödel) and its Theaetetus variants (the points of view), are dynamical, and full of qualia (accepting standard properties of them). Strangely salvia suggests that the 3p reality contains an universal 1p-reality itself., which makes not much sense to me though, but if that was the case, the whole truth would plausibly be the initial consciousness capable of differentiating through the infinitely many universal numbers windows. I am not sure of that. It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness. I am still struggling on this. I made allusion to this with the notion of Galois connection, which exists between theories and models, name and things, equation/surface, 3p-body/1p- person, etc. Bruno: Here is where my string cosmology model has an advantage. It seems to assume a physical reality. But this won't work for the comp mind-body problem. We have to extract physics from computer science, that is Arithmetic. As you know I think the particles of space that precipitate out of 4D-spacetime, are like monads in that they reflect or perceive or are conscious of all other monads (in string theory either because they are a BEC or use r-1/r duality-mapping, or both). My hypothesis is that they are also all distinct and perhaps even enumerable, and hypothetically capable of computing the Arithmetic Reality including consciousness, which of course would include a 3p reality [that] contains an universal 1p-reality itself, corresponding to your Arithmetic Person. How do you define a string without assuming arithmetic? It is a bit trivial to extract the simple (addition and multiplication) from the complex (string theory). Assulming comp I am supposed to have shown that we must to the contrary: extract strings, or the right physics, from comp and arithmetic. You might need to formalize your approach to see that clearly. It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of consciousness. which is also an aspect of my string cosmology
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality, and also, you don't know in which branch of the multiverse (if that exists), or the multi-dream, it will continue. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline to think that some machine think: switching it off is not allowed, unless we are in a state of legitimate defense. And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight for, we better should listen to them. the case is not fundamentally different than with humans. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 03 Jan 2014, at 21:07, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have reservations about the MWI?) Note that with comp, arithmetic is a multidream. Does it define a multiverse? Perhaps. perhaps a multi-multiverse. We simply don't know yet. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 04 Jan 2014, at 02:44, Chris de Morsella wrote: Exactly – the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it can say whatever it wants – after all who is checking lol -- and so can be customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally tuned comforting warm blanket of – essentially unquestioned -- spiritual foundationalism. People seek easy pat “answers” to the hard questions… and really who can blame them. Getting the comfortable framework in place supplies them with their pre-made answers and so solves the evolutionary problem posed by self-awareness, and the ensuing awareness of one’s own inevitable demise…. And the attendant psychological paralysis that opening this recursion of questions leading to deeper questions poses for the individual who may at any moment become lion food on the Savanna. Best to get an easy pat “answer” that addresses the dilemma and provides a comforting happy tale for the individual who can then focus on the day to day business of actually surviving another day. Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least in much of human history). OK. I would not say that it is ok; OK! it is the way things seem to play out, but I for one do not think this is Ok… and I realize you were not assigning any value to the word J I am just OK with your description/conclusion. It does not mean I am OK with them at all, 'course. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality, and also, you don't know in which branch of the multiverse (if that exists), or the multi-dream, it will continue. But, at least in your theory, it will necessarily continue and in many worlds. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline to think that some machine think: switching it off is not allowed, unless we are in a state of legitimate defense. But being switched off is not like death, it's like anesthetic, or suspended animation, or concussion. The analog of death would be erasing the memory. And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight for, we better should listen to them. the case is not fundamentally different than with humans. I'm not sure they have to ask. Animals don't ask, and yet we extend some rights to them. Brent The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer? ---Jeremy Bentham -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 03 Jan 2014, at 23:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog? A mouse? If such an action is gratuitous, it should be. But killing mouse can be justified if it can save humans, usually. This leads to the complex question of the right of plants and animals. It is a bit out of the topics. The idea is that machines' right might lead to similar complex question, in some not so near future. We will need the intimate conviction of the members of the jury. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 04 Jan 2014, at 09:28, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality, and also, you don't know in which branch of the multiverse (if that exists), or the multi-dream, it will continue. But, at least in your theory, it will necessarily continue and in many worlds. It is a theorem, in a weak form of the oldest theory on the matter. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline to think that some machine think: switching it off is not allowed, unless we are in a state of legitimate defense. But being switched off is not like death, it's like anesthetic, or suspended animation, or concussion. The analog of death would be erasing the memory. OK. I interpreted switching of as done irreversibly. My fault. Then there is no problem at all. It is a delay of reconstitution, and in this case, by construction, it is done at the right (normal) substitution level (which conserves the normality). So no problem at all, unless you prevent the machine to find a job or something by switching it off momentarily ... And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight for, we better should listen to them. the case is not fundamentally different than with humans. I'm not sure they have to ask. Animals don't ask, and yet we extend some rights to them. Human empathy. Brent “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer?” ---Jeremy Bentham Nice quote. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote: If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is falsifiable. I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable. This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ... The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the emperor’s new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their assertion of knowing… so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to “pretend” – or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital ‘T’) Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who delve into it – are quite a bit harder to sell. Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to Aristotle, who came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from too much big metaphysical surprises. Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems. Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least in much of human history). OK. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:14, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Dear Stephen, On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote: I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give us a 3p. That's for woman and engineers. The doer. Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am actually interested in the possibility of artificial intelligence as a reality, so these questions are not just an intellectual exercise. IF AI is a reality, that would be an incentive for comp. But comp is stronger that strong AI. machine can think does not imply that only machine can think, so they might think, and we could still be non- machine. Logically. Psychologically, if strong AI is true, it is doubtful we are not machines, as we have no evidences for that at all. It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains ever agreeing. So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth. That makes truth dependent on us. But truth, especially the transcendental, *is* supposed to be independent of us, beyond us, etc. All you need for comp is the belief in 17 is prime, or the machine i stop after k step on input j, etc. As I see things, we can derive the Platonic notion of trust by defining Absolute Truth as that which is incontrovertible for all possible entities. Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite resource accessibility don't care about Platonia. They exists in the arithmetical Platonia. That's a fact. You can't ignore it. Once you say yes to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body. Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!. Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants. Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation other than your canonical? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms. He is an expert in knot theory. G and G* are just advanced form of his Eigenforms. It is math, we can change the canonical, because the canonical is given by theorems, notably on those eigenforms. With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is ultrafundamental, and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology. Computer science gives them on a plateau. I worry that science here has become scientism. Why? That's seems to me to be a quite unfair gratuitous remark. Nobody asks anyone to believe in comp, nor even in 17 is prime (although you are asked this for the sake of the argument). It is proved that if comp is correct, then the 1p and knowers are recovered by the most common definition of knowledge. It is not scientism, it is reasoning in an hypothetical context. To confuse reasoning and scientism is bad philosophy, imo. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
I think Aldous Huxley said something similar, I'm not sure what drugs he took offhand - mescaline? - but I think he mentioned the outside time experience. Yes, good old Google tells me that it was indeed mescaline - and also this... In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an I, but instead a not-I. Meaning and existence, pattern and colour become more significant than spatial relationships and time. Duration is replaced by a perpetual present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_doors_of_perception#Synopsis (Maybe this is perceiving the reality of the Wheeler-deWitt equation!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply... Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Right, that is good. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Isn't that how explanations work? Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc. There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier. You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain. All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one without the other. Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states. Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time. Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it. Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences. Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all. I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view. Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery. That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense, even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described. Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution). So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ... Bruno, From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp. That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe. Is that possible? Richard Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: snip Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states. Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time. Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it. Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences. Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all. I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view. Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery. That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense, even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described. Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution). So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ... Bruno, From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one). and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp. This is unclear. What do you mean? Ah, you explain below. That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe. Is that possible? The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this). Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp Dt) , know (Bp p), observe (Bp Dt p), feel (Bp Dt p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations. You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: snip Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states. Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time. Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it. Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences. Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all. I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view. Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery. That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense, even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described. Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution). So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ... Bruno, From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one). and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp. This is unclear. What do you mean? Ah, you explain below. That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe. Is that possible? The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this). Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp Dt) , know (Bp p), observe (Bp Dt p), feel (Bp Dt p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations. You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy*
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have reservations about the MWI?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog? A mouse? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
I'm going to sue the people who removed my gall bladder for every cent! (...or maybe not, since they may have saved my life :) On 4 January 2014 11:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog? A mouse? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health care system... On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
That's the truth! But to be fair, most of it was paid by my insurance. Brent On 1/3/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote: Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health care system... On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
And we won't get one.. As long as the lobby system runs Washington DC. Too much money is being made on the current dysfunctional health system we are stuck with. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health care system... On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 1:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote: If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is falsifiable. I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable. Perhaps some clever experiments can be devised that indirectly test predictions made by String Theory. along the lines of the ESA experiment with the distant origin gamma rays, where they exploited the vast distances of billions of light year, carefully measuring aspects of the photons (i.e. their spin I believe) and deducing from this how spacetime must be smooth down to extraordinarily small distances in the order of trillions of times smaller than the Plank scale (itself far smaller than anything we can directly probe using the atom smasher tools at our disposal) I believe String Theory makes certain predictions about super symmetry for example that may be testable. Up until now however - it is my understanding - and I could be wrong (so if anyone knows better please do correct me) - that so far the predictions it makes have not been able to be subjected to any unambiguous test. For some years I felt it could never be done - the scales are just too fine grained for the kinds of tools we have to explore the small-scale, but when beautifully thought out experiments cleverly make use of levers such as the huge scale of distance traversed by some gamma ray to be able to make inferences about phenomena that cannot be directly measured (even by an atom smasher bigger than our solar system) I begin thinking that maybe its only a matter of time until some clever experimental physicist/cosmologist devises some lever to be able to infer things about Plank scale phenomena such as strings. This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ... The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the emperor's new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their assertion of knowing. so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to pretend - or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital 'T') Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who delve into it - are quite a bit harder to sell. Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to Aristotle, who came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from too much big metaphysical surprises. Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems. Exactly - the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it can say whatever it wants - after all who is checking lol -- and so can be customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally tuned comforting warm blanket of - essentially unquestioned -- spiritual foundationalism. People seek easy pat answers to the hard questions. and really who can blame them. Getting the comfortable framework in place supplies them with their pre-made answers and so solves the evolutionary problem posed by self-awareness, and the ensuing awareness of one's own inevitable demise.. And the attendant psychological paralysis that opening this recursion of questions leading to deeper questions poses for the individual who may at any moment become lion food on the Savanna. Best to get an easy pat answer that addresses the dilemma and provides a comforting happy tale for the individual who can then focus on the day to day business of actually surviving another day. Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment. Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo- religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable. Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything. it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail. If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Bruno, Hear Hear! On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment. Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable. Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything. it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail. If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul 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
RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:11 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment. Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable. Yes, certainly. Terms and the usage of terms can be as slippery as an eel (though I have not handled any eels so I cannot verify that they are indeed slippery). Religion – at least this is my understanding of the term – derives from the Latin religo a verb tense meaning more or less to rebind – as in book binding where many pages are bound together into a larger cohesive whole bound book. Now there are several ways one can interpret that – the re-binding could have been intended to mean the re-bonding of the individual soul with the larger cosmic story – as told by that faith tradition; or it could mean the binding of many disparate individuals into a single church. I tend to use religion to refer to the organizational and intellectual structures that are erected by faiths and are the manifestation of organized faith practice; while using spirituality (or spiritual experience) to indicate the exquisitely personal deep inner-experiences of those who seek and have faith – and that could be having faith in some religion. If they actively engage in seeking spiritual enlightenment etc. I see that as a personal spiritual pursuit – even if they are doing so within the intellectual, doctrinal confines of some religion (i.e. organized faith based system). Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). You can bet on that J Any idea or edifice of ideas seeking to explain everything is a prime candidate for takeover by that most deadly combination of wolves and the many sheep who follow them. on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything. I believe I thought; therefore I believe I am J it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail. If you can control the beliefs, you can control
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply... Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen, Did my message below slip past you? I noticed you hadn't replied to it yet. Jason On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here. I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is fundamental rather than emergent. How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be emergent. The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent. This looks like an evasion. When the its an illusion answer doesn't work, try its emergent or some combination of the two. Come on. Up above I said it was emergent and you said change cannot be emergent, so I clarified that even if change cannot be emergent, then the illusion of change (that is, the first person belief in a change which is not fundamentally real) can be emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Right, that is good. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Isn't that how explanations work? Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc. There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier. You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain. All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one without the other. Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states. Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time. Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it. Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge. You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge though. Where does that which drives the emergence obtain? From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the idea from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible, the idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought experiments that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily unnecessary to explain our conscious experience of change, etc. All thought experiments involve an entity that is imagining them. Don't they get factored into the argument? My main argument is that the god's eye point of view is an idea that need to be rubbished once and for all. A lot of problems vanish if we dispense with it. No global time, no global truths, no absolute space, etc. I disagree, I think the God's eye view reveals many of our first person ideas to be illusions: the idea of a moving time, the idea of a collapsing wave function, the idea of a single universe, the idea of owning a single body, etc., are all tricks played on us by our ego. This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change. It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look for explanations of it. Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned to read Greek, sorry) is that change is an illusion. Nevermind the persistence of that illusion! I have explained several times that it is a piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc. The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and misdirection... Do you think a computer can be conscious? Trick question? No. Are you a computer? I believe my
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start. But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything. Bruno If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing! On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of substitution? Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory? The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we search, using this or that theories. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Stephen, On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote: I really do appreciate the details! On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time. Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic. But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD, OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)). The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference? Define 'self-obedience'. so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories. OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem? ? It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA. (p - Bp, for p sigma_1, is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian). (Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here). How does it emerge? The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines. I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no action involved! Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it does. Action is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, number sequence. And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging? Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation. Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of emergings? There are two notions of emergence used here. The emergence by the theoremhood, like when saying that once God created the natural numbers and said add multiply, you can define the prime numbers and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes. Does it have to be global? Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the whole of the Sigma_1 truth). I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings. He perceives only one outcome (like in the WM-duplication), selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA. I reject that God's eye view. The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Bruno Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last Supper by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of The Book, being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on. No relevance to the present topic, of course. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although not as such). Here I use comp + Theaetetus. But then to know that we know requires only that we know that we have a belief and that it's true: B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp- B(Bp). We do have Bp - BBp (as BP itself is sigma_1, and Löban machine proves p - Bp for all sigm_1 proposition). In this system isn't it the case that ((p+q)-s)-((Bp+Bq)-Bs) (p+q) - s thus by necessitation B((p+q) - s) B((p+q) - s) - (B(p+q) - Bs) instance of the axiom K : B(a- b) - (Ba - Bb) B(p+q) - Bp + Bq(normal modal logic) B((p+q) - s) - ((Bp+Bq) - Bs) substitution preceding line ((Bp+Bq) - Bs) (modus ponens) So it looks we can derive your:((p+q)-s)-((Bp+Bq)-Bs) But alas we have just use the deduction rule, which is not valid in the modal context when we use the necessitation rule. If not we could derive p - Bp from the necessitation rule, and this is incorrect. p - Bp is usually wrong. This is easy to show by using Kripke semantics. Just take a world alpha with p true, accessing a world beta with p false. In alpha, p - Bp is false. Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold. It does not. You confuse the necessitation rule (we can derive Bp from p), and the so called trivial formula: p-Bp. In G we have neither Bp - p, nor p - Bp. We do have have p - Bp in G1 (the G we obtained when we limit the arithmetical interpretation of the variable atomic sentence (p, q, ...) on the sigma_1 sentence. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Bruno, I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give us a 3p. On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start. But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything. Bruno If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing! On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of substitution? Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory? The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we search, using this or that theories. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, 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
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Bruno, On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Dear Stephen, On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote: I really do appreciate the details! On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time. Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic. But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD, OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)). The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference? Define 'self-obedience'. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of course* it obeys itself *to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)). You defined it: it obeys itself. That is self-obedience, no? so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories. OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem? ? It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA. (p - Bp, for p sigma_1, is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian). (Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here). OK How does it emerge? The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines. I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no action involved! Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it does. Action is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, number sequence. This puzzles me. How is the recognition of action and definitions and measures of action equivalent to action itself? The map is the territory? We agree that there is no absolute time. :-) And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging? Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation. Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of emergings? There are two notions of emergence used here. The emergence by the theoremhood, like when saying that once God created the natural numbers and said add multiply, you can define the prime numbers and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes. In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to achieve exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not know. Does it have to be global? Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the whole of the Sigma_1 truth). This bothers me, as it requires an eternity. I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings. He perceives only one outcome (like in the WM-duplication), selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA. Yes, that one can obtain with an infinite number of constraints imposed on the collection of computations. A pigeon hole principle. This is why I promote the interaction/participation picture of Wheeler. I reject that God's eye view. The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul. I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and will give us what we have. Bruno
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Stephen, On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote: I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give us a 3p. That's for woman and engineers. The doer. It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains ever agreeing. Once you say yes to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body. But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!. Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants. With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is ultrafundamental, and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology. Computer science gives them on a plateau. Bruno On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start. But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything. Bruno If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing! On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of substitution? Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory? The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we search, using this or that theories. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Dear Stephen, On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote: How does it emerge? The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines. I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no action involved! Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it does. Action is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, number sequence. This puzzles me. How is the recognition of action and definitions and measures of action equivalent to action itself? They are not. Some actions can happen because some diophantine relations emulates some 'history'. The recognition of action will appear when the diophantine relation emulates some history involving self-aware universal numbers. They do the recognition relatively to that history. The map is the territory? The map is in the territory. There is a fixed point. We agree that there is no absolute time. :-) OK. And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging? Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation. Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of emergings? There are two notions of emergence used here. The emergence by the theoremhood, like when saying that once God created the natural numbers and said add multiply, you can define the prime numbers and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes. In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to achieve exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not know. Does it have to be global? Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the whole of the Sigma_1 truth). This bothers me, as it requires an eternity. Yes, but the 1p don't see it, and the eternity is not in the ontology, only in what the 1p misses. I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings. He perceives only one outcome (like in the WM-duplication), selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA. Yes, that one can obtain with an infinite number of constraints imposed on the collection of computations. Or not, but no matter what, that happens in infinitely many diophantine relations. A pigeon hole principle. This is why I promote the interaction/ participation picture of Wheeler. I only give a problem. Solve it by any way you can, but try to translate it in term of the G/G*/S4Grz/XYZ to get the quanta/qualia distinction relevant in the comp mind body problem. I reject that God's eye view. The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul. I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and will give us what we have. It depends from what you search. Bruno Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite? Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me. People invented gods long before Peano and Godel and even before the idea of mathematical proof. Gods were just anthropomorphized physics; things did what they did because it was their nature. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment. Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail. Chris Bruno Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last Supper by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of The Book, being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on. No relevance to the present topic, of course. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote: On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite? Yes. Our states are computable. But then they are distributed in the unavoidable infinity of computations going through that state (in the first person sense), making the experience undetermined on those computations. Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp? Yes, indeed. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote: On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me. People invented gods long before Peano and Godel and even before the idea of mathematical proof. Gods were just anthropomorphized physics; things did what they did because it was their nature. I agree. The religious feeling appears when we are ignorant. Since always, some machine can introspect and discover the root of the intrinsic ignorance, and since Gödel Al. we know that PA and ZF can do that, at least in some sense. Now, thunder can be very impressive, and it is normal that humans mix their feeling about that intrinsic ignorance and the one which today appears to us as more mundane and easily explainable from our current knowledge. But introspection still leads us to what we can't ever understand, and to that root of intrinsic ignorance about something transcendentally bigger than us. Institutionalized religion tries to hide that self-discovery for question of manipulation and control. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time. Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic. But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD, OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)). so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories. How does it emerge? The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines. And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging? Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation. Bruno Brent The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1 truth. With comp everything is the whole arithmetical truth, not just all computations. It is also the truth about those computations, and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any machine. Goldbach conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by this or that machine, but that is independent of its truth or falsity. To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just to believe in addition and multiplication. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear LizR, On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.) Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable? Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. You need to say what you mean by thing to explain what is meant by nothing. The same with everything. For example, to define the quantum vacuum, you need to assume Hilbert Space or von Neumann Algebra, which are a lot of thing by itself. Bruno It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is fundamental: change exists at all levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is not a thing, at best it is a transition between a pair of things... I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.) Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable? But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. Ok, but that does not apply to computationalism. Tegmark is missing the comp mind-body problem, the FPI, etc. Even if it makes sense to say that we are in a mathematical structure, that mathematical structure must be extracted from the FPI on the sigma_1 sentences. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, Stephen Paul King wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. Yeah, it's the WAP. Seems quite reasonable to me. It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about the nature of reality. How so? They seem of similar magnitude to me. Remember I'm asking for an explanation of *this*. Not just an explanation of why there is *some world* with people. Because observers do something, they Observe. That is an action. Don't separate observers from their observations. Simple rule linking observers to observations. X can only experience worlds (collections of observations) whose existence is consistent with the observer's existence. Let me drill down a bit more into this. We can take for granted that when we observe some X, we are also observing ourselves in the act of observing X. It is a Lob theorem kinda thing. To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although not as such). Here I use comp + Theaetetus. Bruno Prof. Standish was right about ants! There is no consciousness without self-awareness! Also, disallowing ghost prohibits the possibility of observing a world from the outside. Is this helping? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block- time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/ what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Edgar, I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game? On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Stephen, No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize why... Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Edgar, I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game? On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 step...@provensecure.com javascript: 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
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Hi Edgar, Wheeler shows how it is possible to obtain an emergent world from interactions between observers. It seems that I might have the exactly title of the paper wrong! Please read this! You will see the relevance immediately! http://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pdf Here is a nice commentary on the paper: http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stephen, No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize why... Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Edgar, I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game? On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 step...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time, then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether presentism or block time is true? I don't follow why you say that doesn't follow. Could you elaborate? Jason On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Jason, Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant... Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time, then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether presentism or block time is true? I don't follow why you say that doesn't follow. Could you elaborate? Jason On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of substitution? Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory? The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we search, using this or that theories. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Edgar, You are making a claim without support. Can you explain a mechanism that generates the occurrence of the content of the computations. Bruno and Wheeler do. I am much more Happy with Wheeler's explanation involving interactions, but he does not explain observers. Bruno does give us a definition of observers but it is as objects that exist a priori. I advocate Kitoshi Hitada's definition of observers as separable QM systems, but that definition does not explain where the observables obtain, they just exist a priori as potentia. What is your ontological theory? On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant... Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time, then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether presentism or block time is true? I don't follow why you say that doesn't follow. Could you elaborate? Jason On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Bruno, Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing! On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of substitution? Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory? The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we search, using this or that theories. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Bruno, I really do appreciate the details! On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time. Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic. But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD, OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)). The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference? so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational histories. OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem? How does it emerge? The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines. I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model. There is no action involved! And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging? Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation. Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of emergings? Does it have to be global? I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings. I reject that God's eye view. Bruno Brent The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1 truth. With comp everything is the whole arithmetical truth, not just all computations. It is also the truth about those computations, and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any machine. Goldbach conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by this or that machine, but that is independent of its truth or falsity. To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just to believe in addition and multiplication. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant... So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur in the present moment? This seems somewhat circular. Jason On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post. The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc. If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time, then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether presentism or block time is true? I don't follow why you say that doesn't follow. Could you elaborate? Jason On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote: Do you think a computer can be conscious? If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time universes instead of a moving-present universe? If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe? If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any differently. This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe. Edgar, I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds that the right computations can produce consciousness. Thanks, Jason Edgar, Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that consciousness is the result of a computation. If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it? If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment? I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the reality of the matter is. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last Supper by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of The Book, being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on. No relevance to the present topic, of course. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although not as such). Here I use comp + Theaetetus. But then to know that we know requires only that we know that we have a belief and that it's true: B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp-B(Bp). In this system isn't it the case that ((p+q)-s)-((Bp+Bq)-Bs) Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant... So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur in the present moment? This seems somewhat circular. That reminds me, I mentioned that Edgar's argument is circular way back and never got a reply. Although I guess most of my (and indeed our) objections have gone unanswered. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Liz, et al, I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of the theories. Best all and Happy New Year! Edgar On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:48:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant... So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur in the present moment? This seems somewhat circular. That reminds me, I mentioned that Edgar's argument is circular way back and never got a reply. Although I guess most of my (and indeed our) objections have gone unanswered. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1 January 2014 12:09, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, et al, I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of the theories. I'm afraid the misunderstanding isn't with us, my dear. We keep asking the same question because you persistently misunderstand what the problems are with a theory that posits a common present moment. So, can you answer this one yet? The relativity of simultaneity affects *all* time dimensions connecting events. P-time, clock-time, whatever - they are all susceptible to the same analysis, with the results that Einstein showed. How do you reconcile this fact with your theory ? Until you give a satisfactory answer to the above question, rather than just woolly hand waving accompanied by patronising comments about how anyone who doesn't grasp the pearls of wisdom from your towering intellect must be imbeciles*, people will keep asking it. Best all and Happy New Year! You too! * The poor fools! They said I was mad, but I showed them! I showed them all! Nothing in the world can stop me now, not even you, Doctor / Sherlock / Mr Bond! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ** Oops, sorry, that just slipped out (must keep that to myself until AFTER I rule the World...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical beauty). Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum theory, as well as some aspect of conscious experience, or so I'm told - which isn't a bad start. By the way I do understand WHY you need to posit a common present moment. Any theory that attempts to quantise space-time has the same problem, that it's very hard to do it in a Lorentz-invariant way. Computational style theories (cellular automata, spin foams, LQG, CDT etc) all run into this problem. Only a space-time continuum can be *completely *Lorentz invariant, everything else has to break down at high enough energies and / or speeds. Hence the recent result that appear to sohw space-time is smooth to a very high degree of precision. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear LizR, Indeed! The observation of ultra high energy gamma rays that traveled a long long way ... no dependence seen between energy and velocity... My thought was to replace the single IceCube or FishBowl of space-time with many; one per observer with a composition rule for observers that generates the Lorentz invariance. (I got the idea from David Finkelstein)... On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical beauty). Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum theory, as well as some aspect of conscious experience, or so I'm told - which isn't a bad start. By the way I do understand WHY you need to posit a common present moment. Any theory that attempts to quantise space-time has the same problem, that it's very hard to do it in a Lorentz-invariant way. Computational style theories (cellular automata, spin foams, LQG, CDT etc) all run into this problem. Only a space-time continuum can be *completely *Lorentz invariant, everything else has to break down at high enough energies and / or speeds. Hence the recent result that appear to sohw space-time is smooth to a very high degree of precision. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Stephen, Jason, Liz, The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the computations compute clock time. The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything. The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us nothing. All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz properly raises OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable explanation! :-) Edgar On Monday, December 30, 2013 12:43:34 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Jason, You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote: Hi Jason, So what is turning the knob on the values of y (or x)? Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies. Why does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11? What does destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before? Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain. If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state change your conscious state for x=2? Jason On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote: Dear Brent, I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities? In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the graph of y = 2x + 7 Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 step...@provensecure.com javascript: http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. That answers the question of how this particular sequence just happens for both GR *and *QM! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 December 2013 22:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stephen, Jason, Liz, The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the computations compute clock time. The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything. This is, of course, a circular argument. The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us nothing. All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz properly raises This is, of course, only true if one has failed to grasp the block universe view. OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable explanation! :-) Hmm, looks like a smidgeon of progress here. Edgar On Monday, December 30, 2013 12:43:34 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Jason, You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, So what is turning the knob on the values of y (or x)? Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies. Why does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11? What does destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before? Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain. If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state change your conscious state for x=2? Jason On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Brent, I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities? In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the graph of y = 2x + 7 Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 step...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:25, LizR wrote: I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD runs inside arithmetic Don't push me too much as I really want to explain this to you :) It is not completely obvious, especially if we want be 100% rigorous. There are not so much textbook which do that entirely correctly. But here are three best one: Boolos and Jeffrey (and Burgess for late edition). http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Logic-George-S-Boolos/dp/0521701465 Epstein and Carnielli (out of stock!) http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Computable-Functions-Foundations-Mathematics/dp/0534103561/ref=sr_1_2?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1388400218sr=1-2keywords=epstein+and+carnielli Matiyasevitch http://www.amazon.com/Hilberts-10th-Problem-Foundations-Computing/dp/0262132958/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1388400285sr=1-1keywords=matiyasevich Matiyasevitch shows explicitly how to emulate any Turing machine with diophantine polynomials. Oh, well, there is also the old good Stephen Kleene 1952 book, and many by Smullyan (although like Gödel they do that in PA or equivalent, and not in RA, which ask for more verification. Matiyasevitc shows that for diophantine equation, which means that it makes the RA universal quantifier not needed, and so gives the stronger result. The main deep idea is already in Gödel 1931. May be the shortest path is to explain the phi_i and use Kleene predicate to explain that equalities involving the phi_i are made arithmetical by the use of Kleene's predicate, but this needs the Gödel coding, which is long to describe, and even longer to prove that it does correctly the job. I am thinking how to explain this without going in the technical details. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stephen, Jason, Liz, The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the computations compute clock time. The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything. The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us nothing. You are right: you don't get anything with only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... But you get the subjective time and possible relatively objective 3p time from the sequence above, once you agree with the laws of numbers: explicitly: x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x Arithmetic contains all diophantine approximation of all ... soccer cups, and things like that, like the collison between the Milky Way and Andromeda. But the 1p (consciousness) emerges really only in the limiting glue of the diophantine solutions, and those might not be solution of any particular diophantine equation. Bruno All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz properly raises OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable explanation! :-) Edgar On Monday, December 30, 2013 12:43:34 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Jason, You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, So what is turning the knob on the values of y (or x)? Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies. Why does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11? What does destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before? Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain. If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state change your conscious state for x=2? Jason On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Brent, I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities? In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the graph of y = 2x + 7 Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 step...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time. Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic. But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD, so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges? How does it emerge? And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging? Brent The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1 truth. With comp everything is the whole arithmetical truth, not just all computations. It is also the truth about those computations, and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any machine. Goldbach conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by this or that machine, but that is independent of its truth or falsity. To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just to believe in addition and multiplication. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? Brent That answers the question of how this particular sequence just happens for both GR /and /QM! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.) Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Brent, On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? Yes, QM -as standardly used- has a state transition model to do calculations with it. There are other ways of doing computations. My favorite is Hewitt's Actor Model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7erJ1DV_Tlo Observers come with self-consistent universes -which are their observations. Interactions between these must be, at some level, logically non-contradictory (incontrovertible). Brent That answers the question of how this particular sequence just happens for both GR *and *QM! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear LizR, On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.) Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable? Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is fundamental: change exists at all levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is not a thing, at best it is a transition between a pair of things... I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.) Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable? But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Hi Brent, But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. No, the one we happen to find ourselves in may be arbitrary, but not random per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers). On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen. A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...) You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe. Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur. But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain? That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.) Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable? But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. No, the one we happen to find ourselves in may be arbitrary, but not random per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers). Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must be one suitable for our existence too. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is fundamental: change exists at all levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is not a thing, at best it is a transition between a pair of things... That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change. However, you *do *assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from anything simpler. I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded... Hope you get well soon! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. Yeah, it's the WAP. Seems quite reasonable to me. It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about the nature of reality. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. No, the one we happen to find ourselves in may be arbitrary, but not random per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers). Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must be one suitable for our existence too. Brent But we don't need to assume randomness in the acausal sense. As I see things, the reality in which we find ourselves is one that evolved, but the one was selected as being the one at least compatible with our experience in it. I reject pre-ordained harmonies as unnecessary! We don't have to impose order and consistency. All we need are local rules that allow consistency and then notice that we only experience ourselves in those worlds that are consistent with us in them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in. I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led to here. Yeah, it's the WAP. Seems quite reasonable to me. It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about the nature of reality. How so? They seem of similar magnitude to me. Remember I'm asking for an explanation of *this*. Not just an explanation of why there is *some world* with people. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
