Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr. High School? By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote: I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote. Interleaving. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote: I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then con

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a "non-feminist" in the 21st century deserves to be shot. So it's fortunate for Edgar that his ego, if not his theory, appears to be bullet-proof. On 15 January 2014 15:26,

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

You won't get a sensible answer. Edgar is just playing with words. He might as well have said "We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here." On 15 January 2014 18:20, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: > So you're assuming that "nothing" must mean "non-existence"? Why? > > In any c

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

So you're assuming that "nothing" must mean "non-existence"? Why? In any case, "Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist" is really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from it. While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume them axiomati

Fwd: The Singularity Institute Blog

A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI about how to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous (FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing excerpt that starts at the bottom of page 30: *Jacob*: Can't you ask it questions about what is believes will be true abo

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 15:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > LIz, > > Good one! Thanks for the chuckles! > > Thanks! It's the least I can do considering the hours of amusement you've provided. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscr

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 15:29, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be > Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some "non-feminist" women who > could be? > > Probably not in my neck of the woods (New Zealand) -- us Kiwi birds tend to be a bit t

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some "non-feminist" women who could be? On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

*"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and healthy en

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Freq, But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one. You? Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with > finding a life partner. > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, fre

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent, I didn't say that... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:11:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Freq, > > Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? > Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

LIz, Good one! Thanks for the chuckles! Best, Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:01:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> Jason, >>> >>> There are no 'synth

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one". But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with artificial neurons having the same inp

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 14:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, > > Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment > perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't... > > Lighten up and smile! > Actually I'm trying to restrain myself from ROFL at the moment, be

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > OK. > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract > > > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

So, all is explained. No wonder "he" doesn't get special relativity, with its free-falling elevators and trains travelling at half the speed of light! I can almost picture his response... Albert, There are no 'relativistic trains' that can travel near light speed. When there are let me know, and

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

OK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Freq, > > Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note > I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one". > > S

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one >> by one". When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer >> you

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't... Lighten up and smile! :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was say

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one". Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > > >

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You are starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade me to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or - of co

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, It's a lot less of "hunch" than the simulation theory in the first place. Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that God created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY the same theory as the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just without the modern

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one > by one". When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer > your question. > > You are letting your imagination run wild he

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, > > If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we > are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not > just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the > simulation

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in the 19th century! I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other things that are real as well - but not simulate

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, a

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

Liz, That is the explanation Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> All, >> >> My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', >> answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Wh

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one by one". When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study re

Re: Tegmark and consciousness

On 15 January 2014 11:09, John Mikes wrote: > It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries > and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of > the totality. > > I think I follow this but I'm not sure. Could you explain further, or give an exam

Re: Tegmark and consciousness

Brent: thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words! I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him indeed). I loved (and tried t

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam wrote: > condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... > > Teehee. Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal. This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, b

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 09:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, > and have zero consciousness. > > Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I > can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question >

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on "How Spacetime emerges from > computational reality". I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I > explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical. > > It's the

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > John, > > The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we > appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through > our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise > in the

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR wrote: > On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this >> question... >> >> Actually to answer your question properly you h

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, > > See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this > question... > > Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', > what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the > det

Re: What are wavefunctions?

Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to argue about, so let's try again. Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that the time symmetry of fundamental physics could account for the results o

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR wrote: > >> >> >>> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the quantum level. >>> >>> >> Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type >>> device a quantu

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 15 January 2014 05:33, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact >> description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically >> possible mathematical universe >> > > Maybe but we

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > All, > > My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', > answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather > than nothing exist?' > > Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist. -- You re

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 15 January 2014 08:21, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of > something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of > argument, at least when made public. > > > So in priva

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work > informally. > You don't consider Newton's "Law of Gravitation" to be a formal theory? How much more formal can you get than defining space and time and mass and force then re

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, > and have zero consciousness. > Edgar, 1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious? 2. Do you believe replacing your neurons

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you > can judge... > I generally consider that *dualism* has too many basic concepts (as Stephen will tell you :) And anyone who understands their own ideas should be able to tel

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Brent, > > The "elements of the set" are the information encoding the current state > of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that > may be needs to be further clarified. > So let me get this right. You have a "theory"

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent, Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, and have zero consciousness. Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > John, > > The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we > appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through > our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise >

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent, Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on "How Spacetime emerges from computational reality". I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical. It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even comm

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

John, The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms t

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that idea I wonder? :-) There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is A

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of argument, at least when made public. So in private you are convinced, but as a professor of logic you ar

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/14/2014 8:33 AM, John Clark wrote: > but rather as the number of possible microstates the system might be in at this moment given that we only know the macrostate We don't even know for a fact that some macroscopic objects, like Black Holes for example, even contain microstates

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", I clearly stated there > is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the > minds of biological organisms. > OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jason, > > There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists. > That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one physical universe. > > It is conceivable there is more than one physical univ

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Thanks Terren, > > However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date. > I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and > almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this grou

Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousness

Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousness A very good presentation with lot of overlap on my views. He proposes similar ideas about a sensory-motive primitive and the nature of the world as experience rather than “objective”. What is n

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual things have individual localized existences, but existence (reality) itself is

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this question... Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitr

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Liz, Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly limited. That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out there somewhere is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-parsimonious. As for the grid cells on the GR rubber sheet model just imagine a mass-energy c

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Bruno, I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an idea of a mind. Even if such a mind is degenerate in that it cannot be ever complete, it still have finite subsets that are indistinguishable from finite minds. The eternal running of the UD is such a eternal process. R

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Jason, Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr. High School? By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logica

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent, Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most b

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent, Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that idea I wonder? :-) There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR wrote: > > >>> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the >>> quantum level. >>> >> >> >> Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type >> device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Jason, There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists. It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time thinking about it. As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologis

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... She was not really wrong. She alluded to the equations that Newton provided. She was restrict

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most >> basic axioms and concepts of the theory

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact > description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically > possible mathematical universe > Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we ever find a Theory

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT infinite. In what real world? In all real worlds? To define "not finite", you need second order logic. To assume *one* finite reality is close to a blaspheme (grin) i

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Thanks Terren, However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date. I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this group has been extensively revised in the book and in my posts he

Why our fine tuning and not some other?

All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' The second fundamental question is, 'Why does what actually exists exist instead of something else?' Why is our univers

Re: Tegmark's New Book

By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml, there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book. Terren On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Bruno, > >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Liz, > > >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Bruno, Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT infinite. The possibilities are restricted by the intrinsic nature of the quantum vacuum. For example, you can't get an infinite number of different TYPES of particles out of the quantum vacuum. The set is very restricted

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014/1/14 Edgar L. Owen > Liz, > > That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the > time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness > to criticize... > > The more likely is that you just talking garbage since the beginning... your present time i

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:42, LizR wrote: On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. This sounds like St Anselm's ontological argument put into a nutshell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument You are quite quick here.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. So you assume: 0. non-existence cannot exist. That is too fuzz

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 13 Jan 2014, at 23:26, meekerdb wrote: On 1/13/2014 11:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: William, No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality. In any case the quantum vacuum, out of wh

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 13 Jan 2014, at 22:27, LizR wrote: On 14 January 2014 08:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is NON-dime

Re: A Theory of Consciousness

On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: On 1/13/2014 7:17 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:17:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2014 10:49 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: As you've explained it above your theory

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 13 Jan 2014, at 21:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi, Someone wrote, not sure if it was Terren or Bruno: "... from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and will follow the path with the greater measure. " This looks like some form of a self-selection!? OK. Like in the

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote: William, No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality. In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is a we

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:47, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stephen, PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of 'Realization' deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with serious insights on how to directly experience reality as it actually is such as: 1. The fundamental expe

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe where addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old. So you assume the usual physical universe? Your "comp space" (which I have still no clue at all of it consists

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 13 Jan 2014, at 18:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Terren, Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical realities being computed. There is no Platonia You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in my theory. Comp needs only the arithmetical P