are not
a good explanation after all.
Richard
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Richard,
Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar
Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages
20 March 2014 2:00 pm
[image: Life from
of the Gulf stream as a possibility
based on plate movement.
But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream
known to result from arctic warming.
Richard
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Richard,
Yes, I noted
Richard,
Here is a much better graph showing the correlation. Edgar
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Edgar,
I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares
isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as
comparable
colder so marmots and
rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread
bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc?
-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
Sent: Sat, Mar 22
to still be working now and
we can expect global cooling to occur again.
Richard
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Spud,
Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations
esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long
Spud,
If only dead wood is cut for firewood and cooking you are just recycling a
sustainable resource. Unlike coal and oil, firewood quickly and sustainably
regenerates. And basically burning dead wood is just speeding up the
natural process of the decay of dead trees.
So burning dead wood
Spud,
But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet,
the ecosystem, and the human species itself.
Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I
fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology
that has resulted in
resources upon which population is dependent.
Edgar
On Friday, March 21, 2014 11:49:27 AM UTC-4, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Spud,
But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet,
the ecosystem
Spud,
Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used
firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead
trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes.
Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs
Spud,
The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically
reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good
target ~half to 1 billion...
Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us...
Edgar
On Thursday, March 20,
Brent.
Correct to a point and those networks of entanglement form the basis of my
theory of how space arises piecewise from quantum events that no one here
is interested in exploring even though it resolves all quantum paradox and
shows how to unify QT and GR.
Ah, well, there is always the
Brent,
If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the
universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has
been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being
stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in
UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Brent,
If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the
universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has
been since the beginning
John,
If human overpopulation is not drastically reduced humanely it will
inevitably be drastically reduced INhumanely...
There are a number of ways to reduce human overpopulation humanely. Mainly
by offering sufficient financial incentives to women of child bearing age
to undergo voluntary
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Telmo,
No, compression is totally unable to explain the storage of total
information in a universe which continually doubles its amount of
information from one Planck time to the next and continually adds that
amount to the cumulative total
but not sure if it's clearer...
Edgar
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:24:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2014, at 12:54, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow
without actually being encoded in actual matter states
Liz, et al,
The problem with your and other's comments is that, as I've explained
before, entropy is NOT fundamental as many seem to think..
The current entropy state depends entirely on the current mix of the four
fundamental forces, in particular on whether gravitation is more attractive
or
Liz,
How is going to another planet and screwing that one up too going to help.
The problem is not astronomical, it's human nature. The very success of
humans as a species depended on the ruthless exploitation of nature and
repression of competition. But those exact same aspects of human
Richard,
Yes, it's fun to watch everyone who was dumping on Edgar now dumping on
each other even more viciously!
So maybe it wasn't Edgar after all, but those who were doing the dumping?
:-)
Edgar
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:23:28 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
The situation at everything
.
Edgar
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:17:47 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
Hmmm, let me see. If I just take my eye out of its socket and turn it
around then I guess by your theory I'd have self awareness?
It's
All, this seems like a very reasonable scenario and is in line with my
thinking.. Edgar
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists
NASA-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible
collapse'?
All,
In terms of the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions the theory I find most
compelling in both cases is asteroid strikes whose resulting strike
energies were also focused at the antipodes. The energy of the Cretaceous
strike off the Yucatan was focused in India where it ruptured the crust
Craig,
Hmmm, let me see. If I just take my eye out of its socket and turn it
around then I guess by your theory I'd have self awareness?
Edgar
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
by humans willy
nilly
I would be surprised if Brent, a physicist, disagrees with that but I'll
let him speak for himself.
Edgar
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:52:32 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
You actually
Liz,
Don't you understand the difference between a repeatable observation, which
is the basis of science, and human interpretations of reality based on how
human minds work?
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:12:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
Russell,
You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance
depend on how humans see the world?
If so I disagree,
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:53:40 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell
John,
I don't know where you are getting your data but the data I've seen shows a
fairly neat CORRELATION of global temps and CO2. Would you like to give us
a link that shows otherwise that is authoritative?
Edgar
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:16:16 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar
:46:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex
because there can be no deterministic rules
to align completely separate spacetime fragments, thus nature must act
randomly to align them..
Edgar
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:53:22 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason
actual
proper times.
Edgar
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world
line is actually shorter than C's (even
times
between A and C with your method?
And isn't that what you keep telling me CAN'T BE DONE?
Edgar
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
I guess I'm supposed to take
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
is
All, re global warming
Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge
threathttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zmescience/~3/w9XOKUpInB0/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email
Oceanographers believe that Antarctica‘s oceanic waters, which are turning
from briny to fresh in
this we find that the different LENGTHS of world lines
between any two spacetime points are due ONLY TO ACCELERATIONS OR
GRAVITATION as I previously stated.
Do you agree?
Edgar
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:01:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
whatsoever. We NEVER
actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how
minds work...
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
All,
An empty space
On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:08:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to
discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational
reality of which
:15:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
posts.
I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
argue
Russell,
Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also
similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different
answers
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:23:46 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L
do.
If you disagree I can give you another example.
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:26:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the
typical
leads to consistency problems. At least it seems
awfully lonely
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:36:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also
01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
whatsoever. We
, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of
empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly
to directly experience this by actually seeing that
everything is actually its information components, and that only.
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:39:20 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edga
javascript:wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because
Ghibbsa and Bruno,
Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't
really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error
discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted
assumptions and conclusions about its application to the
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Jesse,
PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY
causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age
rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them
when they meet up
used actual ages synchronized at birth (twins) to avoid that kind of
misunderstanding.
Edgar
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:23:54 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying
:41:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed
simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes.
But velocity intervals which
Jesse,
I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME
VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it.
What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation.
Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close
be a whole panel of
judges to approve it, and the whole panel to reject it.
Edgar
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 5:58:55 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa and Bruno,
Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided
Jesse,
First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any
contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?
But that really doesn't matter because second, you are NOT using MY method
because you are using ANOTHER coordinate clock FRAME rather than the frame
views of the
Jesse,
Here's another point for you to ponder:
You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the
weighted mean of all frame views is? I would suspect that it converges
towards my solution. It is clear from your own analysis that it does
converge to my solution as
!
Edgar
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:32:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I only insult people who insult me first,
No. You have insulted many people a long time before they react to the
insult. You arrive in a list, and you don't seem
OF ALL VIEWS tends to converge on my solution,
which is what I meant to say. Sort of like a Bell curve distribution with a
point at top representing my solution
Would you agree to that?
Edgar
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:00:19 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L
in
Edgar
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:36:10 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any
contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?
No, I
lack of simultaneity
between two events Nonsiimultaneity=(t1-t2) and plot it relative to the
simultaneity that my method claims is actual.
Edgar
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
no evidence you are even able to do that
Edgar
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
What I meant to say was not that each
are just endlessly repeating what you read in some relativity textbook
without using simple logic to determine its proper application
Edgar
On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:51:25 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
Bruno,
It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to
claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that
demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality.
Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH
WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it
. is true of symmetric cases, and 2. is true
of all cases...
Edgar
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:19:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame.
The important
Marchal wrote:
Edgar,
On 04 Mar 2014, at 15:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to
claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that
demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality.
Can you link me to any
4, 2014 2:19:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.
1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age
at this point in spacetime must be T as well
disagree.
The current discussion is about choice of frames though. Check my latest
post for a synopsis of one case..
Edgar
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:56:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga
just another
disagreement over choice of frames that were assumed, then give me a simple
example, the simplest you can come up with.
Edgar
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:37:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse
receivers both moving
relative to each other and at distance from each other. if it didn't, it
couldn't work. So even relativity tells us this is possible.
Edgar
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:52:12 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript
Brent, et al,
I officially challenge anyone to poke any holes in my theory of how
spacetime emerges from quantum events or prove it wrong. If no one takes me
up on the challenge I'll have to assume everyone accepts it by default.
I claim the theory
1. Resolves all quantum paradox
2. Provides
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Your position becomes more and more absurd.
My position is simply that for any question on which different frames
give different answers, there is no physical basis for judging one frame's
judgments to be reality while others are not. I
Liz,
Thanks but P-time doesn't need to be rescued from relativity since it's
completely consistent with relativity, though apparently not with some
people's interpretation of relativity.
Edgar
On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:42:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
By the way, a friend suggested how Edgar's
this is the ERROR in your example. Therefore it does NOT generate a
result in which A's proper age is both 0 and 20 at the same point in
spacetime.
Edgar
On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:50:40 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
Liz,
The 'results' and the 'everything' are the actual information state of the
universe. There is NO separate storage of anything other than the current
information state of the universe. The current information state of the
universe is continually being computed by the computations.
No, it
it and then try to disprove it works.
Edgar
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Let me ask you one simple question.
In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again
, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
To address your points in order:
1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important
point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct
in principle as any non
criss cross trip. Therefore there must also be proper age correlations (at
every second) for ALL symmetric trips.
Edgar
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse
that there is any
correlation of actual ages possible. Is that correct?
Edgar
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run
Jesse,
OK good, that's what I assumed you meant.
BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth,
and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion
you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 1:1
correlation of their
Brent,
You claim my p-time theory sounds outrageous but you haven't been able to
meaningfully comment on my many demonstrations of how it actually works
that I've made to Jesse.
For example Jesse claims that there is no 1:1 correlation of proper ages of
twins separated by distance in relative
Bruno,
This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. The
universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have no
direct knowledge of the universe. They have only their internal mental
simulation of the universe. To the extent that simulation is consistent
but
am certainly willing to consider your 'proof'.
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT
the point
of establishing the 1:1 correlation what's your proof
this is incorrect?
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:28:01 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my
javascript:wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to
representing ACTUAL physical facts.
E.g. we can
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:42:18 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes
the
true value of.
On 2 March 2014 12:34, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:54:19 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
information does need a substrate in which to manifest.
That seems
with respect to an invariant notion
of proper ages that we CANNOT unambiguously observe, why can't we use
calculation and deduction with proper age simultaneity as well?
Edgar
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga
All,
In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information is
not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of reality,
Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what is
interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their
Chris,
For a computational universe to even exist it must be consistently
logico-mathematical. If it weren't the inconsistencies would cause it to
tear itself apart and thus it couldn't exist. This is where the math comes
from. If a computational universe exists, and ours does, it must be
wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:46:47 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Chris,
For a computational universe to even exist it must be consistently
logico-mathematical. If it weren't the inconsistencies would cause it to
tear itself apart and thus it couldn't exist.
Unless consistency
:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 15:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stathis,
At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe.
There is no evidence for a universe. (in the usual aristotelian sense of
the word).
But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present
:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
My understanding of the first part of your reply is though proper time is
ONLY one's reading of one's own clock (as I stated) it IS possible for
any other observer to calculate that proper time and always
Spud,
Based on a computational universe all things are just information states.
Thus computational changes to any information state constitutes a generic
experience (what I call an Xperience). Thus any information state is in
effect a generic observer.
This is a neat and useful definition
this make it clear what my theory is trying to do? The theory is based
on pair wise correlations, not invariance
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
You point out that from
that's the way that 1p zombies 1p clones operate?
Anyway I do answer all serious questions...
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 12:42:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2014, at 04:45, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript
it to life and
makes it real and actual...
And yes that's me. Thanks for your kind comment!
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
information does need a substrate in which
to distinguish that from H-physics.
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:04:29 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
John,
I agree that the substrate that information manifests in is NOT physical,
it is abstract in the sense
Brent,
Yes, that's consistent with the theory I present in my book. Specifically
that computational reality itself is continuous in the sense that there are
NO separate individual things. This continuous reality does however contain
overlapping computational domains based on dynamic
Brent,
Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post by Liz
talking about your theory. If so I'll be glad to answer.
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:
If anyone is looking for the source of
Guys,
David Koch can't be all bad since he is a major financial supporter of the
PBS 'Nova' programs. His name appears in the opening credits of all of
them...
Edgar
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:10:33 AM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Stop right there. You complain about the Koch's
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:45:51 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Can you agree to this at least?
To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post:
'If you continue to ask me Do you agree? type questions while
start making up other frames on me here. Just compare the proper
times of those coordinate clocks. Do they all run at the same rate or not?
Edgar
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:56:08 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript
rate unless there is some actual effect
that causes them to run at different rates.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:07:41 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
First the answer to your question
1 - 100 of 803 matches
Mail list logo
