Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Edgar, That begs the question. You start by assuming reality is computed, and then conclude that because reality exists, reality must be computed. Again I will point out that except for one key difference, your ideas and Bruno's are actually pretty similar. The difference of course being that the

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1/9/2014 8:26 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Brent, On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb > 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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Brent, On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:27 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/9/2014 8:26 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Brent, > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb 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 comp

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 10 January 2014 17:19, meekerdb 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 occur. All it DOES is provide the process

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 10 January 2014 16:07, 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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Brent, On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb 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 occur. All it DOES i

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 10 January 2014 16:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > 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... > > So, obviously, any logical argument that shows that computationa

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational space > th

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 pick

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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.

Re: The One

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 i

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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, 2014

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 thes

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 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 > computa

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, I don't call my theory "comp" (except in my hurried response above I slipped and did). You do. I don't actually have a single name for the entire theory. Just read what I actually say about it and don't assume anything else. My computational reality is NOT anybody else's, in fact it it's

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 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, January 9, 201

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 wrote: > Liz, > > Your comp is obviously not m

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Liz, > > Obviou

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show i

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen 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 > assuming) that it

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 (exten

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 conclu

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote:

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen 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 good start.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear LizR, Exactly. That requirement of a single computer is deeply troublesome for me. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:16 PM, LizR wrote: > On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Stephen, >> >> There is no "single observer that can take in all events...". I never >> said that and don

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 p

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 of

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen 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 universal proc

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 10 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen 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, but I'm > sti

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 13:19, Jesse Mazer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR wrote: >>> On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer wrote: > Well, most physicists already agre

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 13:19, Jesse Mazer 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 > *information*

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 12:58, Jesse Mazer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 8 January 2014 13:14, Jesse Mazer 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/9/2014 4:19 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer mailto:laserma...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 8 January

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR wrote: > On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer wrote: >>> Well, most physicists already agrees physics is time-symmetric (well, CPT-symmetric, bu

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 a

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, LizR wrote: > On 8 January 2014 13:14, Jesse Mazer 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 some of these are... >>

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 ph

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 10 January 2014 06:58, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR 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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > >> (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 unless we are o

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 10 January 2014 11:01, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen 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 >>

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 fu

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen 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 come up with a

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear LizR, That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR wrote: > On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb wrote: > >> >> I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is >> (locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a u

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 Q&A portion is amazing! On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/9/2014 10:5

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb 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 in a mile", whic

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1/9/2014 10:58 AM, LizR wrote: On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King > wrote: Dear Bruno, I have to agree with Alberto on this point. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 09 Jan 201

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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. See

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen 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 > possible and m

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 conservation of phase

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 a

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 09 Jan 2014, at 19:58, LizR wrote: On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King > wrote: Dear Bruno, I have to agree with Alberto on this point. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But the UD argument predict that al

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 quest

Geography

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 compu

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 alg

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 subscri

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/9/2014 9:45 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR 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, screams at us that

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal > > > 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 violation is a quite strong

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Co

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 > do

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear Bruno, > > I have to agree with Alberto on this point. > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >> But the UD argument predict that all the possible universes

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 10 January 2014 03:04, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear Edgar, > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 s

Re: Fukushima myth

I will send David Icke to sort you out. On 10 January 2014 00:34, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > 2014/1/5, LizR : > > 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 cli

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR 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. > > > Th

Re: A Theory of Consciousness

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 actively

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 forms

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:24, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer 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, Because you restrict

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Stephen, > > I have some familiarity with Wolframs CA, I played with them myse

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 09 Jan 2014, at 17:53, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal 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 inequalit

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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, >

Re: A Theory of Consciousness

Hi Edgar, Ok, I'll bite :) On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 distinguish betwe

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 fo

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR 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 > symmetric equ

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Stephen, > > Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little above in which I

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Stephen, > > Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little above in which I answer > most of your questions on the nature of experience. >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 an

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Bruno, I have to agree with Alberto on this point. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal 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. >> > > > Where? AR

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM, LizR 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 "t

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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 h

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 tha

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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. Eve

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 Clark -- You recei

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:52 PM, meekerdb 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 those same physici

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer 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 the result of the fu

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2014/1/9 John Clark > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal 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 no

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal 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 Mechanics, wha

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 : > > On 09 Jan 2014, at 12:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > >> "But with comp the laws of physics are uniqu

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Edgar, On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 of any con

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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

Re: Fukushima myth

2014/1/5, LizR : > 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 except you the con

Re: Fukushima myth

In any case, they are _your_ straw Horsemen 2014/1/5, LizR : > On 6 January 2014 09:55, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > >> Don´t try to convince hyperinformed idiots. they will consume the >> information that they choose to believe. >> >> For the new analphabets, consumers of the internet fantasies a

Re: Tegmark's New Book

"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 bomb

  1   2   >