RE: To observe is to......EC

=== STEP 6: Initial state, 'axioms' (*) The initial state of the EC axiom set is 1 huge collection of phase related fluctuations. The (*) means that all the axioms are coincident - there is no 'space' yet. No concept of place. The number of spatial di

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Bruno Marchal writes: > > Le 21-oct.-06, à 06:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > > > > > Bruno Marchal writes: > > > The UD is both massively parallel > and massively sequential. Recall the UD generates all programs and > executes them all together, but one step at a time. T

To observe is to......EC

= STEP 5: The rolling proof NOTES: 1) There is only 1 proof in EC. (Symbolically it has been designated U(.) above) 2) It consists of 1 collection of basic EC primitives (axioms) 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

David Nyman wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > Maybe physics is relations all the way down. > > Hmm... I think this is pretty close to what Bruno is saying, using > AR+CT+UDA as the 'placeholder' for the universe of relational > possibility. But, to differentiate your own views, what would you > propose as

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: > > 1) 'Computationalism', a theory (implicitly or explicitly) based on > > materialism, although in a manner which (witness our recent dialogues), > > at least so far as its putative association with consciousness is > > concerned, in an entirely 'relational' manner which is extremely

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: > Maybe physics is relations all the way down. Hmm... I think this is pretty close to what Bruno is saying, using AR+CT+UDA as the 'placeholder' for the universe of relational possibility. But, to differentiate your own views, what would you propose as the relata (i.e. when you've gone

To observe is to......EC

Well father...moving right along with my bedtime story === STEP 4: Axioms= primitive signs = fluctuations. ( ) You can either think of EC as having no numbers at all. You can also imagine the same calculus implemented in number, but this woul

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

1Z wrote: > Computationalism doesn't imply that. a conflict between > computationalism and physicalism would be be astonshing > and highly significant. It certainly would be astonishing to a 'physicalist'. But, as you have remarked, our agenda here is more ecumenical. > A conflict between physi

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

David Nyman wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > > 1) 'Computationalism', a theory (implicitly or explicitly) based on > > > materialism, although in a manner which (witness our recent dialogues), > > > at least so far as its putative association with consciousness is > > > concerned, in an entirely 'relatio

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

David Nyman wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > Computationalism doesn't imply that. a conflict between > > computationalism and physicalism would be be astonshing > > and highly significant. > > It certainly would be astonishing to a 'physicalist'. But, as you have > remarked, our agenda here is more ecume

Infinitesimal roadmap (was Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted)

Le 21-oct.-06, à 02:12, David Nyman a écrit : > Yes, of course, Brent - hence my comments later on in my post. But in > fact, comp implies that the normal physics model can't 'fit all the > data', if we include (as we must) the 1-person pov itself in 'the > data'. And my point is also that a mod

Re: Time, Causality and all that

Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit : > > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D > > Jones > > > >> The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a > >> Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one > >> distinguishing "rea

Re: Time, Causality and all that

Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin wrote : >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D > Jones > >> The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a >> Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one >> distinguishing "real" ones from "coincidental" ones. Ho

Re: Time, Causality and all that

Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit : >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D > Jones > >> The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a >> Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one >> distinguishing "real" ones from "coincidental" ones. H

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

Le 21-oct.-06, à 06:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > Bruno Marchal writes: > The UD is both massively parallel and massively sequential. Recall the UD generates all programs and executes them all together, but one step at a time. The "D" is for dovetailing which is a t