I've just finished reading that review. I didn't find the arguments as
convincing as I hoped I might, especially since I'm sure I've already read
and liked a book by Butterfield (on time I think?) so I was looking forward
to some thought-provoking arguments and maybe something that would make the
*arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf*
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348]
Title: Our Mathematical Universe?
Authors: *Jeremy Butterfield*
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Butterfield_J/0/1/0/all/0/1
Comments: 17 pages, no figures, *this http URL*
Nothing about only 37 bits of information available for computation in the
human brain in Butterfield's paper.
Richard
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
*arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf*
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348]
Title: Our
I am about 1/3rd though it now. So far it is an interesting read, and I
have learned quite a bit about about cosmology. I have not gotten to any of
his ideas about multiple universes or mathematical reality yet.
Jason
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
A
Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a
State of Matter,
my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be understood
on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics-
the former yields only a max of 37 bits
and the latter even less.
Richard
On Sat,
I will answer that if / when I have read it.
On 2 February 2014 01:23, Ronald Held ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
has the most members in it.
For another try I have read the following:
arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
A consensus?!? Here???
Excuse me while I ROFLMAO, at least metaphorically.
*I'm *gonna read the damn thing, ha ha, to quote a very old review by John
Clute of a James Blish novel.
Well, at least, I'm going to give it a go. I like Mad Max's mojo for some
reason. They laughed at Bozo the clown,
On 1 February 2014 06:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Meanwhile - back at the ranch:
Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of
matter. This is
On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :)
Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but not
quite. Both of these Brains the Size of a Planet are married though. We must
try to find a
On 1 February 2014 17:37, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :)
Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but
not quite. Both of these
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Meanwhile - back at the ranch:
Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state
of matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he
goes along, I'm
Meanwhile - back at the ranch:
Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of matter.
This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along, I'm
afraid...
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d
Kim
Kim
On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Meanwhile - back at the ranch:
Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of
matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along,
I'm afraid...
I think to be fair he wants to
On 26 Jan 2014, at 13:13, ronaldheld wrote:
Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth
buying this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic
universe, UDA,etc?
I would certainly not recommend it if you are interested in cooking
pizza.
Nor even in the UDA,
On 26 Jan 2014, at 20:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
To combine my responses to several of your posts...
I sort of agree with your notion of multiple realities but I would
argue these are not the fundamental reality and we must assume a
more fundamental reality with the same laws of
On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:24 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
As many as are possible.
So if it is possible that they all exist, how is that different from
block time?
Jason
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth buying
this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic universe, UDA,etc?
Ronald
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:31:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 26 January 2014 16:27, Stephen Paul King
Stephen,
I think we need to back up and explore the root of this apparent
disagreement.
If I understand you you claim there are multiple computational realities
while I claim there is only one. Is that correct?
If so then please answer a few questions so I can understand your position
Stephen,
To combine my responses to several of your posts...
I sort of agree with your notion of multiple realities but I would argue
these are not the fundamental reality and we must assume a more fundamental
reality with the same laws of nature, rules of logic, and fine tuning, etc.
that
On 27 January 2014 01:13, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth buying
this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic universe, UDA,etc?
I would hope noone here is a believer in the PU, UDA etc! We just haven't
refuted
On 25 Jan 2014, at 18:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Once again a summary of my computational universe:
I did not ask you a summary of your theory. Just a definition of
computation, or of your computational space notion, as what I get is
until now seeming inconsistent.
The
Dear Jason,
I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists. I
would say that we have a concept of a present moment that we may believe
that each person has. Maybe you are directing this post to Edgar...
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
Dear Jason,
The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to
undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.
I try to not mistake an idea for something it represents.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen,
If
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists.
I would say that we have a concept of a present moment that we may
believe that each person has. Maybe you are directing
Dear Jason,
As many as are possible.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists.
I
Brent,
I have answered this several times but apparently it didn't register.
P-time is the time IN WHICH everything that can be measured is computed.
Therefore one CAN NOT measure intervals of p-time because they are prior to
measurability (at least so far as I can see). Thus when we try to
Stephen,
Agreed. I suspect I'd be literally burned at the stake for my scientific
heresies by some here if they had a chance!
But I find it strange you'd say that so far I have not seen anything
original in your proposal. Everyone else here condemns me because my ideas
are TOO original! My
Bruno,
Once again a summary of my computational universe:
The fundamental level of reality consists of pure abstract computationally
evolving information in the LOGICAL (not physical, not dimensional) space
or presence of reality. What exists here is NOT static arithmetic truth.
What exists
Dear Edgar,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
I have answered this several times but apparently it didn't register.
P-time is the time IN WHICH everything that can be measured is computed.
Per observer (defined abstractly and not necessarily
Dear Edgar,
Ah, we disagree on a few more things...
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Agreed. I suspect I'd be literally burned at the stake for my scientific
heresies by some here if they had a chance!
But I find it strange you'd say
On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind
blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the
ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for
Liz,
Yes, of course time is a dimension but that does NOT imply a block universe.
That is because only the present moment of the time dimension actually
exists. This simply means the past no longer exists, and the future has
never yet existed. Reality exists only in the present moment.
Thus
Dear Edgar,
Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of
associated events to be so in our mathematical representations.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Yes, of course time is a dimension but that does NOT imply a
On 26 January 2014 09:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the
block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make
the case using your remarks below.
Good luck. You need to
Stephen,
Strictly speaking I could agree with that because only the current point of
that dimension actually exists. See my explanation in detail in my previous
post in this thread.
However the trace of past time does qualify as a dimension, if you want to
define it as such, but that past
On 26 January 2014 09:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
Stephen,
PPS: Sometimes I get the feeling you just go with the latest scientific
breeze?
Edgar
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:55:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of
associated events to be so in our
On 26 January 2014 09:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of
associated events to be so in our mathematical representations.
This is true of all physics. It's all mathematical representation (I hope
Dear Edgar,
I try very hard to not conflate mathematical/informal models of what we
observe with the content of what we observe.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Strictly speaking I could agree with that because only the current point
of
Dear LizR,
You lost me. Why are you and others so wedded to local realism?
The arguments against realism in QM critically assume Bell's fourth
assumption - that there is some underlying time asymmetry built into
physics. If one throws out this (so far unproven) assumption, it become
Dear LizR,
I am not arguing that we* canno*t treat time (the concept) as if it
where a dimension. We are free to built any sort of explanatory model we
wish and hope that it is consistent with what we measure. I am saying that
we *should* not. Events cannot be said to be out there waiting for
On 1/25/2014 1:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 January 2014 09:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of
associated
events to be so in our mathematical representations.
On 26 January 2014 11:18, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
You lost me. Why are you and others so wedded to local realism?
Because it's the simplest assumption that explains why violations of Bell's
inequality are possible, Because it's a lot simpler to
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Russell,
I agree, this has been pointed out by many. The Schroedinger's
equation uses the classical concept of time. The
On 26 January 2014 15:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Russell,
I agree, this has been pointed out by
Dear LizR,
I have no idea, I gave up on such questions as they make bad assumptions,
IMHO. We propose explanations for what we experience with an understanding
that we cannot trust our experiences to be truthful.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January
Dear LizR,
I try to (have some idea what I am talking about). I just have lost the
desire to explain myself. I made my case already.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:24 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I have no
On 23 Jan 2014, at 20:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Finally I agree there is NOT just a single computation going on. I
just agreed with that in my previous response. I suggested there are
myriads of computations going on in a single computational reality.
One of course needs a single
On 24 Jan 2014, at 02:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Among other interesting things, you wrote:
If you have an idea how a (von Neumann) computer is functioning, or
if you have played with a couple of universal system (machine or
language), and have even a rough idea how
Bruno,
The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell you
that before you get it?
Edgar
On Friday, January 24, 2014 3:28:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 20:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Finally I agree there is NOT just a single computation going on.
On 24 Jan 2014, at 14:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell
you that before you get it?
I did not say that.
But you mentioned a single computational reality. What do you mean?
There is only one single computational reality,
Bruno,
Stop making the ridiculous claim that there is only one computational
reality, the UD, as if yours was the only one that could even be
postulated.
My computational reality is NOT the same as your 'comp', and your
conclusions obviously do not apply to mine.
I've explained mine in
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which
Stephen has just presented to you.
All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed
and static somehow moves (without
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Bruno,
Stop making the ridiculous claim that there is only one computational
reality, the UD, as if yours was the only one that could even be
postulated.
My computational reality is NOT the same as your 'comp', and your
conclusions obviously do
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which
Stephen has just presented to you.
All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that
Quentin,
Boy, this is like talking to a cult member. Only true believer personal
flame attacks supporting their 'guru' with no actual substance at all. And
you think it's me that shouldn't be posting on a scientific forum?
Go figure!
:-)
Edgar
On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:56:28 AM
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
Boy, this is like talking to a cult member. Only true believer personal
flame attacks supporting their 'guru' with no actual substance at all. And
you think it's me that shouldn't be posting on a scientific forum?
Go figure!
Yeah go
On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which
Stephen has just presented to you.
Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could
Liz,
Do you have some references or links indicating either Einstein or Newton
believed in block time? That's news to me and I rather doubt they did. I
know Einstein once mentioned time was a persistent illusion, but that's not
at all the same as believing in block time
Or perhaps you are
Dear Edgar,
One has to be willing to face the flames, sometimes literally, when
promoting a new idea. I do appreciate your concepts and willingness to
defend them. I must say that so far I have not seen anything original in
your proposal that really sparks my attention.
I do wish you would
On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Liz,
Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is
a BS
theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which Stephen
Indeed. In fact he hasn't answered a whole raft of questions, preferring to
make a snarky comment about one item in a post and completely ignoring the
rest of it. He also doesn't think Newton and Einstein believed in block
time, even though the term originates from Minkowski's unification of space
Hi Stephen,
Finally some time to get back to this interesting discussion. Sorry for the
delay...
No, I don't understand your argument that we can only use the notion of a
single computational space if we wish to consider a timeless version of
Computation? That simply doesn't follow.
As long
Dear Edgar,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Finally some time to get back to this interesting discussion. Sorry for
the delay...
No, I don't understand your argument that we can only use the notion of a
single computational space if we
On 21 January 2014 17:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Did the notion of an Eigenform, as defined, make sense to you?
I just had another look. It appears to be an infinite nest of boxes... I am
probably missing something but I can't see how this relates to,
Dear LizR,
The infinite nesting of boxes is one of the possible products of the
process that Kauffman is laboring to explain. It can be equally applied to
the construction of the natural numbers by starting with the null set and
adding layers of brackets, or by the von Neumann
On 24 January 2014 14:01, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The infinite nesting of boxes is one of the possible products of the
process that Kauffman is laboring to explain. It can be equally applied to
the construction of the natural numbers by starting with
Dear Bruno,
Among other interesting things, you wrote:
If you have an idea how a (von Neumann) computer is functioning, or if you
have played with a couple of universal system (machine or language), and
have even a rough idea how Gödel's theorem can be proved in arithmetic (=
by PA itself),
Dear LizR,
The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of, the
process. It makes sense that the product would be the opposite of the Flux,
they are not the same thing. One does not start with an infinite nesting,
one starts with the null set or, if we use the Laws of Form, it
On 24 January 2014 14:29, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I do not see how what is by definition fixed and timeless can be
considered to have any property that is an actual
actionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics)
.
Following the supplied link gives this
On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of, the
process. It makes sense that the product would be the opposite of the Flux,
they are not the same thing. One does not start with an
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum mechanics:
positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite states; a block universe
must have all of its observables as mutually commuting so that they are all
simultaneously definite.
But let us ignore that and
Dear LizR,
I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_(
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of,
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum mechanics:
positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite states; a block universe
must have all of its observables as mutually commuting
On 24 January 2014 14:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_(
Then sadly it seems to be falling into Edgar-land. He can't grasp how
relativity makes his idea of p-time a non-starter, and you can't grasp
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum
mechanics: positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already
too high.
And PGC had a dig at me for giving a big fat TL;DR!
I'm glad other people have this problem.
--
On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I argue against the block universe idea as
On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already
too high.
And PGC had a dig at me for giving a big fat TL;DR!
I'm glad
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 04:27:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already
too high.
And
On 21 Jan 2014, at 19:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English.
Rhetorical trick, and you don't answer to the question that I asked
you. I gave everyone the proof, and I told you that the UD
On 22 Jan 2014, at 02:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later
after I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of
your points.
You say the UDA serves a good purpose to show that there is some
ontological merit
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that
seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste from a pdf. Can you
open it in the Chrome browser?
In this ontology, all
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that
seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste
On 23 January 2014 02:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, there are many ontological assumptions.
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 02:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King
On 23 January 2014 12:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
And the logical process, at least, re-presents the physical process. We
get a closed loop if we have full algebraic closure and a bijection between
the two sides of the proverbial coin.
I don't know what this
Dear LizR,
(Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just saw a cat created
the cat?)
Kinda! in a way, Yes. (I am not considering all othe other observers of the
Cat. Think of the loop as involving a delay, that the transformation is not
instantaneous. it takes time for the system to
On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
(Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just saw a cat created
the cat?)
Kinda! in a way, Yes. (I am not considering all othe other observers of
the Cat. Think of the loop as involving a delay,
Dear LizR,
Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
(Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just
On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm.
OK. (Shame because the imaginary timeless realm version looks quite good,
ontologically speaking.)
So what alternative have you in
Dear LizR,
I want to explore the idea that Realities Evolve.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm.
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
To answer your questions sequentially.
I don't see any way the arithmetical true relations compute or
emulate anything.
I agree this is not obvious. But it is known by all experts in the
field.
That is already present in Gödel
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Jan
Bruno,
You continue to avoid the actual question. How does a static reality of all
true arithmetic in Platonia actually result in change and the flow of time?
You just claim everyone knows it.
Until you can give a convincing answer to that your theory can't be taken
seriously.
Just
On 21 Jan 2014, at 17:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You continue to avoid the actual question. How does a static reality
of all true arithmetic in Platonia actually result in change and the
flow of time? You just claim everyone knows it.
Where. I just said (see below) that everybody
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English. Just requoting some abstract mathematical
proof won't suffice unless you can prove it actually applies. If there is
really a way to get motion from stasis you should be able to simply state
Dear Edgar,
We can get to the root of the obstruction, perhaps, is the nature of
perception. If perception, physically speaking, is the mere matching
between some bit of the world to some bit in the brain (or whatever is
running the recursively enumerable functions) then this would match up
Stephen,
It's an error to assume that perception has anything to do with things
moving. The current information state of the entire universe is continually
being computed whether it's being perceived by anyone or not. Perception
has nothing to do with it except apparently in the erroneous
1 - 100 of 604 matches
Mail list logo