On 08 Jan 2014, at 18:53, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 06 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:21, Stephen
On 08 Jan 2014, at 18:57, Telmo Menezes wrote:
In case you haven't seen it...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
Seems like an attempt to recover materialism, which strikes me as
somewhat unexpected from Tegmark. Am I missing something?
Will take a look. It is weird indeed. Especially coming
On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:53, LizR wrote:
On 9 January 2014 11:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes
as what data feels like when it's being processed - hardly a
detailed theory. He starts
On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:11, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
did you agree whether TRUE BELIEF means in your sentences
1. one's belief that is TRUE, (not likely),
It is that one. Bp p means that p is believed (by some machine)
and that it is the case that p.
or
2. the TRUTH that
On 20 Aug 2013, at 14:13, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Also I believe that 9/11 was a good thing,
That's gross.
albeit it would have been better if Bin Laden had focusses only on
legitimate military targets like the White House, the US Congress,
the Senate and the Pentagon.
My bag of
On 09 Jan 2014, at 05:55, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno writes Bp p, where Bp ambiguously means Proves
p (Beweisbar?) and Believes p.
What is ambiguous? I said that I limit the interview to Platonist
*correct* machine, believing in arithmetic or in recursively
enumerable extension of
On his web site Max Tegmark says something like for every 10 serious
papers I publish, I allow myself one crazy one - this may be the latest
crazy one, meaning that it's highly speculative and shouldn't be expected
to synch with his other papers (crazy or otherwise).
(Or then again, this may be
But with comp the laws of physics are uniquely determined by a
statistical sum on an infinity of computations
Uniquely determined? That is like saying that The Buckingham Palace
is uniquely determined by the statistical sum of a infinity of pieces
of lego thrown in the site by infinite B52
In any case, they are _your_ straw Horsemen
2014/1/5, LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
On 6 January 2014 09:55, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Don´t try to convince hyperinformed idiots. they will consume the
information that they choose to believe.
For the new analphabets, consumers
2014/1/5, LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
The idea would seem to be, get someone to present an exaggerated claim,
show it to be false, then claim that therefore there is no problem.
Happens all the time with climate change denial.
LizR I have to say something important that no one will believe
Stephen,
I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything that
exists. One must be careful to distinguish between actual external reality,
of which there is only one, and individual 'realities' which vary widely
across individuals and species, and which are all individual
Dear Edgar,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything
that exists.
I denote everything that exist as 'the Total Universe' or simply
Existence. The key is that such is independent
On 09 Jan 2014, at 12:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But with comp the laws of physics are uniquely determined by a
statistical sum on an infinity of computations
Uniquely determined? That is like saying that The Buckingham Palace
is uniquely determined by the statistical sum of a infinity of
But the UD argument predict that all the possible universes with all
possible laws will be produced. What is what makes our physical laws
unique determined by COMP?'
2014/1/9, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 12:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But with comp the laws of physics
2014/1/9 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, read Bell.
I have.
It shows how QM violates his inequality.
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course that
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you will find relatively few physicists who expect that any new
fundamental theory like quantum gravity will fail to have these [time]
symmetries
If so then time's arrow, that is to say time's asymmetry, is not
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
All the physicists I know regard the second law of thermodynamics as a
statistical, not fundamental, law.
Exactly, and because statistics is based on pure logic and not on the
trendy physical theory of the day if you asked
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote
For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the ratio
of white to black cells [...]
In the Game of Life the number of black cells is always infinite, so I
don't see how you can do any ratios.
John K
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, read Bell.
I have.
It shows how QM violates his inequality.
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course that his inequality was not consistent
with Quantum
Terren,
I don't find the panpsychism label useful. Mine is an entirely new and
independent theory.
The way it works starting from the beginning:
At the fundamental level reality consists only of computationally
interacting information forms made real by occurring in the reality of
being.
On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But the UD argument predict that all the possible universes with all
possible laws will be produced.
Where?
What is what makes our physical laws
unique determined by COMP?'
That happens already at the step seven.
I assume there that
OK, that's actually pretty close to my own thinking on consciousness. FWIW
I don't see all that big of a difference between what you've articulated
regarding Xperience and what has been articulated by panpsychist
philosophy. I agree with your point about the limitations of labels, but if
they can
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm arguing that time is symmetric,
Good luck winning that argument when nearly everything we observe,
from cosmology to cooking, screams at us that time is NOT symmetric.
Not at the quantum level,
If so then obviously the
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But the UD argument predict that all the possible universes with all
possible laws will be produced.
Stephen,
Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little above in which I answer
most of your questions on the nature of experience.
You will see in that post I note that the computational information
universe can be considered to consist of what I call 'Xperience' only (see
that post for
Dear Edgar,
I cannot find that post that you reference. COuld you forward to to me
privately?
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little above in which I answer
most of your questions on the nature of
Dear Edgar,
Check out this article by S. Wolfram:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/academic/undecidability-intractability-theoretical-physics.pdf
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
I know.
similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
I know
and quantum mechanics is, too.
I know.
The only thing in the entirety f physics that isn't based on time
Terren,
First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories into
standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
Yes, everything, including computers, Xperiences according to its actual
form structure. A computer with sufficient self-monitoring and other human
simulating
Hi Edgar,
Ok, I'll bite :)
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book on
Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
To understand consciousness we first must clearly
Stephen,
I have some familiarity with Wolframs CA, I played with them myself many
years ago, but don't find much that applies to the present discussion, or
that sheds much light on reality IMHO...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 12:53:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
On 09 Jan 2014, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Well, read Bell.
I have.
It shows how QM violates his inequality.
I know, I demonstrated exactly that on this very list using my own
language. And Bell knew of course
Dear Edgar,
The article has nothing to do with Cellular automata. It has to do with
computational aspects of physical systems. You might find it informative.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
I have some familiarity with Wolframs CA, I played
On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:24, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
wrote
For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the
ratio of white to black cells [...]
In the Game of Life the number of black cells is always infinite,
On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:29, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
I don't find the panpsychism label useful. Mine is an entirely new
and independent theory.
The way it works starting from the beginning:
At the fundamental level reality consists only of computationally
interacting information
Telmo,
My theory of consciousness is made considerably clearer in detail in my
book on Reality if you want to get the full story :-)
The answers to some of your questions:
Sure dreams are real, like everything is, but their reality is that they
are dreams. Actually mind is continually
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
I know.
similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
I know
and quantum mechanics is, too.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:08 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you will find relatively few physicists who expect that any new
fundamental theory like quantum gravity will fail to have these [time]
Hi Edgar,
OK, so I think you are would say yes to the doctor who would save you
from a life-threatening brain disorder by giving you a prosthetic brain
that replicates your biological brain at some level.
If so, Bruno's UDA proves that the physical world as we experience it is
not computable.
I will send David Icke to sort you out.
On 10 January 2014 00:34, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/5, LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
The idea would seem to be, get someone to present an exaggerated claim,
show it to be false, then claim that therefore there is no problem.
On 10 January 2014 03:04, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Edgar,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything
that exists.
I denote everything that exist as
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But the UD argument predict
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote
For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the ratio
of white to black cells [...]
In the Game of Life the number of black
On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:50, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
Alberto was only missing step seven. You can comment my answer to
Alberto.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
to me, the Bell's inequality experimental violation is a quite strong
evidence for MW, that is QM-without collapse.
To me Bell's inequality experimental
Terren,
Receiving a prosthetic brain is a (probably insurmountable) technical
problem. There could certainly be one functionally equivalent to mine but
it wouldn't be mine because it wouldn't have the exact same history. If it
did it would be mine in the first place rather than some prosthetic
On 1/9/2014 9:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm arguing that time is symmetric,
Good luck winning that argument when nearly everything we observe,
from
cosmology to cooking,
On 1/9/2014 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
That and the equations of cosmology.
The equations of cosmology, Einsteins or Wheeler-Dewitt, are T-symmetric. You seem to
have confused the equations of evolution and the boundary conditions.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
Bruno:
Sorry but I do not understood point seven when I read it and I do not
understand you now.
I understand Solomonoff theorem about inductive inference that involve
infinite computations and probabilities, but Solomonoff has a
selection criteria : the algoritmic complexity theorem uses the
Bruno Marchal:
You might confuse geography and physics. The (sigma_1) arithmetic is the
same for all, and the laws of physics must be given by the same laws for
any universal machine. Comp makes physics invariant for all
machine-observers, and entirely determined by the unique measure on all
Edgar,
The yes doctor scenario is just a means of discovering whether you'd have
faith that a digital copy of yourself, in principle, would still be you
enough to perhaps avoid certain death. If you say yes, in principle I could
be substituted, then you are betting that comp is true.
My question
On 09 Jan 2014, at 19:58, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G.
Terren,
I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's an
impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the reasons I pointed out. You can't
come up with a hypothetical scenario which isn't actually physically
possible and make a correct deduction about reality on that basis.
We
Edgar,
It may not be necessary to produce an exact replica of the brain. I mean
that is more or less implied by choosing a level of substitution... if
you're substituting at a relatively coarse-grained level such as neurons,
then you are betting that most of the intracellular details of a neuron
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
And as I've said, there is also the fact that if the laws of physics
don't conserve phase space volume, the 2nd law wouldn't hold either.
You've got it backwards, there is no fundamental law of physics concerning
the
On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's an
impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the reasons I pointed out. You can't
come up with a hypothetical scenario which isn't actually physically
Dear LizR,
There is an interdependency that should not be ignored between the
objects that express the quantities and relations that are represented by
the logic and arithmetic. A universe that does not contain any persistent
entities would not be capable of expressing numbers or statements.
On 1/9/2014 10:58 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a unit conversion
factor between the + and - signature terms. It's value is arbitrary, like
how many feet
Dear Brent,
Kevin Knuth has been able to show how local Lorentz invariance emerges
from relations between multiple observers! See his talk here
http://pirsa.org/10050054/ (all the way to the end). The QA portion is
amazing!
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant.
On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Terren,
I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's an
impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the reasons I pointed out. You can't
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
And as I've said, there is also the fact that if the laws of physics
don't conserve phase space volume, the 2nd law wouldn't hold either.
You've
On 10 January 2014 11:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's
an impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
(Unless comp is false or that we are manipulated through a normal
simulation).
Physics is transformed into the study of a lawful precise arithmetical
phenomenon of a type first person plural experience.
Not
On 10 January 2014 06:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
I know.
similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
I know
and quantum mechanics is, too.
I know.
On 1/9/2014 2:26 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Liouville's theorem is derived in deterministic classical mechanics. If you take a
volume of phase space, each point in that volume is a specific microstate, and if you
evolve each microstate forward for some time T using the deterministic equations of
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 13:14, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The expansion of the universe is the most likely explanation for the
entropy gradient - there are a number of ways in which it generates
negative entropy, briefly
Brent,
This is precisely why it is impossible to exactly clone a mind. Because you
are always trying to hit a moving target. That was included in what I meant
by saying the histories would not be the same.
Saying somebody is the 'same' person from day to day is just loose common
speech using
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already
Liz and Terren,
I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on it.
After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually change from moment to
moment yet I have no doubt I'm still me. I'm not the 'same' person, but I'm
still me by all reasonable definitions.
Therefore assuming
On 1/9/2014 4:19 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
mailto:laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 10 January 2014 12:58, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 13:14, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The expansion of the universe is the most likely explanation for the
entropy gradient - there
On 10 January 2014 13:19, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Locality is preserved so long as no physical objects travel faster than
light.
I don't think physicists use such a narrow definition--if the equations
of QM were modified so that the EPR experiment could be used to transmit
On 10 January 2014 13:19, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse
On 10 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz and Terren,
I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on it.
After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually change from moment to
moment yet I have no doubt I'm still me. I'm not the 'same' person,
On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
There is no single observer that can take in all events I never said
that and don't believe it.
However there has to be a single universal processor cycling for a
computational universe to work. That single
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of occasions,
reality is obviously computed because it exists. What more convincing proof
could there be? If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure
nonsense that is conclusively falsified by the very existence
Liz,
No, there is not a single universal processor, there is a single processor
CYCLE. All information states are effectively their own processors, so the
computational universe consists of myriads of processors, as many as there
are information states (more or less). But all these myriads of
Dear LizR,
Exactly. That requirement of a single computer is deeply troublesome for
me.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
There is no single observer that can take in all events I
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of occasions,
reality is obviously computed because it exists. What more convincing proof
could there be?
One that explains why that has to be so would be a
Stephen,
There is NO such requirement. See my response to Liz..
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:45:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
Exactly. That requirement of a single computer is deeply troublesome for
me.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:16 PM, LizR
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume a
computational universe in the first place you have to assume (you are
assuming) that it computes reality. The fact that reality exists is
On 1/9/2014 5:15 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
PPS: A computational universe, IF it computes clock times which it must, absolutely
requires something besides clock time to be moving to provide the processor cycles for
those computations to occur within. That something is a universal
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume a
computational universe in the first place you have to assume (you are
Maybe I got confused. I thought you were talking about processor cycle time
- the time that is prior to all the various times that occur in the
computed reality. The question is, what is *that *time? (whatever it should
be called)
On 10 January 2014 15:48, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Your comp is obviously not my comp. Don't tell me what my comp does or
doesn't do...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:38:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One
Common Liz, I just spent the last number of posts telling you and Stephen
what it is... Don't make me repeat myself...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:51:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Maybe I got confused. I thought you were talking about processor cycle
time - the time that is prior
When I talk about comp, like everyone else on this list apart from you, I
mean Bruno's theory. That's what I'm talking about here. May I respectfully
suggest you call yours something else, to avoid confusion?
On 10 January 2014 15:52, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Your comp is
No you spent them telling me what it *does*. I'd like to know what it *is.*
On 10 January 2014 15:54, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Common Liz, I just spent the last number of posts telling you and Stephen
what it is... Don't make me repeat myself...
Edgar
On Thursday,
Brent,
That seems to assume a prior existence of quantum correlations in a
non-computational universe. Anyway it's just another unproven speculative
theory. Why post it as if it proves something?
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:35:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/9/2014 5:15 PM, Edgar L.
Well, that's OK then.
Now we've cleared that up, I can repeat my original point:
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume
Dear Edgar,
You wrote: there is not a single universal processor, there is a single
processor CYCLE. All information states are effectively their own
processors, so the computational universe consists of myriads of
processors, as many as there are information states (more or less). But all
No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational space
that enables computations to take place since something has to move for
computations to occur. All it DOES is provide the processor cycle for
computations.
You seem to be nit picking...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9,
Bruno and Brent,
please do not paint me as a Robert Rosen imitation. I have esteem for his
mind, but tried to go on from SOME of his thoughts in my own way. He was a
mathematician and a biologist, I am none of those. His untimely death cut
his thoughts and I believe there would have been more to
Stephen,
Your error here is assuming the computations take place in a single wide
physical dimensional space. They don't. They take place in a purely
computational space prior to the existence of physical dimensional
spacetime. Physical dimensional spacetime is a product of the computations.
Liz,
So? I'm not really interested in Bruno's comp as I don't think it actually
applies to reality. I'll stick with my computational reality for the time
being at least...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Well, that's OK then.
Now we've cleared that up, I
On 1/9/2014 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational space that enables
computations to take place since something has to move for computations to occur. All it
DOES is provide the processor cycle for computations.
You seem to be nit
Dear Edgar,
Could you be more specific about the properties of computational
space? What are its metrics, its topological properties, its parameters,
etc.?
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in
Dear Brent,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/9/2014 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational space
that enables computations to take place since something has to move for
computations to
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
