On 14 January 2014 13:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:12 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2014 13:04, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
What would happen is mathematics did not amazingly match
On 1/13/2014 3:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 11:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 1:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM,
Stephen,
If everything is information being computed then obviously all observers
are also part of that and thus analogous to running programs interacting
computationally with the other running programs of reality. I guess I
hadn't made that clear yet...
Everything is analogous to a running
On 14 January 2014 13:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:06 PM, LizR wrote:
Quite possibly, of course! But in my humble opinion, Max Tegmark and
Bruno and Eugene Wigner (and Galileo, Gauss, Einstein etc) do have a point,
that maths does seem to kick back and to be
On 14 January 2014 13:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
If everything is information being computed then obviously all observers
are also part of that and thus analogous to running programs interacting
computationally with the other running programs of reality. I guess I
Liz,
Good question which I've given a lot of thought to and which is still not
completely clear in my mind...
The processors are not separate physical entities processing the data and
they are not separated from the data (the information). So far as I can see
all actual information has to
On 1/13/2014 3:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal
theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal
theory even though they are continually offering theories of their own, none
Tegmark's new book just arrived in my mail. I'll let everyone know what my
thoughts on it are when I finish.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
On 14 January 2014 14:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Good question which I've given a lot of thought to and which is still not
completely clear in my mind...
The processors are not separate physical entities processing the data and
they are not separated from the data (the
That's one book I will attempt to read (BOI by David Deutsch was another
but he lost me in the chapter on beauty)
On 14 January 2014 14:35, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Tegmark's new book just arrived in my mail. I'll let everyone know what my
thoughts on it are when I finish.
Liz,
There is no FTL because this is not a physical dimensional space, it's a
computational space. The notion of 'together' is computational interaction
rather than dimensional co-location.
Clock time doesn't produce the processor cycles because clock times are
computed by those cycles. Only
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered
a 'formal theory'.
A first (and great) step would be just to explain in clear normal language
(no jargon) what you assume, and what you
Brent,
Aren't you familiar with the concept of a logical or mathematical or
computational space that is non-dimensional? Simply stated it's just the
locus or association of some set of elements. There is no necessary
physical dimensionality associated with the concept.
Edgar
On Monday,
Jason,
I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in considerable
detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon' I've used is the
single neologism 'ontological energy' which I've defined clearly.
I can't help it if reality is a difficult subject. What frustrates me is
On 1/13/2014 6:14 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Aren't you familiar with the concept of a logical or mathematical or computational space
that is non-dimensional? Simply stated it's just the locus or association of some set of
elements. There is no necessary physical dimensionality
Edgar, I'll give you another chance to answer my question. I know, I know,
I'm so generous.
You say P-time corresponds to the reality processors and clock time
emerges from those calculations.
Imagine that you now insert a dummy operation in between every cycle of the
fundamental processor(s),
On 14 January 2014 14:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
There is no FTL because this is not a physical dimensional space, it's a
computational space. The notion of 'together' is computational interaction
rather than dimensional co-location.
How is a computational space
Terren,
You are right reality processors don't work like that. My theory attempts
to address reality as it is, not as it hypothetically might or could be.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:39:03 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
Edgar, I'll give you another chance to answer my question. I
On 14 January 2014 15:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Aren't you familiar with the concept of a logical or mathematical or
computational space that is non-dimensional? Simply stated it's just the
locus or association of some set of elements. There is no necessary
physical
Edgard,
You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not what you
are assuming at the start. So what are those minimal assumptions you took
as true at the start which led to your other deductions?
Thanks,
Jason
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen
OK, good luck to you. I'm tapping out of this. I have literal tolerance for
someone who has a big important theory but won't answer direct questions
about it (and not just mine, clearly).
T
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
You are right reality
On 14 January 2014 16:03, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, good luck to you. I'm tapping out of this. I have literal tolerance
for someone who has a big important theory but won't answer direct
questions about it (and not just mine, clearly).
Very wise (although I think you
Brent,
The elements of the set are the information encoding the current state of
the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that may
be needs to be further clarified. I've put forth a whole list of likely
possibilities on this group over the past week or so including
haha, yes, I meant little. It's a fun game until it's not.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2014 16:03, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, good luck to you. I'm tapping out of this. I have literal tolerance
for someone who has a big
On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
The elements of the set are the information encoding the current state
of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that
may be needs to be further clarified. I've put forth a whole list of likely
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic
axioms and concepts of the theory.
1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
3. The theory must be consistent with and
Liz,
Sure, the particle property conservation laws that conserve the amounts of
particle properties in elementary particle interactions, and the laws that
govern the binding of elementary particles in matter. These are the
fundamental computations that determine most of the structure of the
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic
axioms and concepts of the theory.
Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which
are the ones derived from
On 14 January 2014 16:49, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sure, the particle property conservation laws that conserve the amounts of
particle properties in elementary particle interactions, and the laws that
govern the binding of elementary particles in matter. These are the
On 11 Jan 2014, at 13:54, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
The WM experiment is easy to grasp. For me the difficulty lies, as
Liz guessed, with the infinity of possibilities. For continuation Cn
does p(n) stabilize as the number of computations approaches infinity?
If not, comp is false.
On 11 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to
follow you here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one of
these days but unfortunately I barely have enough time these days to
read this list.
OK. Good
On 11 Jan 2014, at 15:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD,
UD*, which from the
On 12 January 2014 18:33, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is
On 11 Jan 2014, at 23:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 11:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what is the measure of relative persistence?
It is the measure almost defined by the material hypostases (in
S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*). It defines the comp physical laws.
How do those different logics
On 11 Jan 2014, at 15:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as
primitive. Both emerge from the additive-multiplicative structure of
arithmetic (AR), and that structure provides the
On 11 Jan 2014, at 18:57, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD,
UD*, which from the first person
On 11 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 23:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 11:01, LizR wrote:
nor does it do anything - it's simply there, in a timeless realm.
UD* does not do anything, but we can say that relatively to the
addition and
On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:33, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
On 12 Jan 2014, at 08:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I am writing about concepts that are more fundamental than
physics, but some of the same ideas transfer from the fundamental to
the phenomenal. Physics is phenomena that we can observe and
measure...
Neutrality is the
2014/1/12, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:49:38 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
Maximus writes:
The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as the planet Neptune and
the radio wave: with mathematics. Why does our universe seem so
mathematical, and what does it mean? In my new book, Our Mathematical
On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what about Glak, a being in an alternative physics?
If Glak mind obeys to the laws of Boole, and if Glak as a finite
body, and if he is self-referentially correct, then we share with
Glak the same
Dear Bruno,
I don't see how it follows that Pratt's theory does not allow for a FPI.
I have repeatedly said that a 3p is a construct from 1p and does not have
content outside of some 1p. He does not assume that the universe is
classical, as you do. You are the one making a mistake, I am afraid.
On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:26, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent!
Indeed! A theory that explains everything must be more than a list
of tautologies!
Good. And that's the case with comp. We get 8 logics and mathematics.
Bruno
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:25 PM, meekerdb
On 11 Jan 2014, at 00:21, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 07:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 17:57, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined -
but only for a particular point of view.
Yes, but it is a
On 11 Jan 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 10:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor
computing the state of the
On 11 Jan 2014, at 02:04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Terren,
Yes, it is about the continuations and measures thereof. I am not
having much luck discovering how the measures are defined.
Yes, that *is* the problem. And that is the result: that very problem
and a translation of that
On 11 Jan 2014, at 02:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Yeah, if there's one thing about the UDA that seems like magic to
me, that's it - how an infinity of emulations condense into a
single conscious experience.
I would be please to understand the problem. If you are OK with step
3, you know
On 11 Jan 2014, at 03:57, Terren Suydam wrote:
If they're all truly identical then yes, it's much easier to see how
it could be experienced as a single consciousness.
But what precisely does it mean for an infinity of computations to
go through my state?
It means that from your first
On 11 Jan 2014, at 04:12, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 15:57, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
If they're all truly identical then yes, it's much easier to see how
it could be experienced as a single consciousness.
But what precisely does it mean for an infinity of
On 11 Jan 2014, at 06:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I will try a crude summary and hope to not be misunderstood... It
starts with the Stone duality, a well known isomorphism between
Boolean algebras and totally disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces.
The former are
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Hmm? Steven turns into a White Rabbit is not a logical
contradiction, it's a nomological one. If there's a transition from
(t1,x1) to (t2,x2) it seems the only logical contradiction would be
x2=Not x1 at t1. Logical is
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*,
which from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the
1p delay invariance.
The UD never stops. If a process lasts forever, it is eternal,
On 11 Jan 2014, at 09:04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I don't see how it follows that Pratt's theory does not allow for
a FPI. I have repeatedly said that a 3p is a construct from 1p
But then you make the 1p primitive, which contradicts many of your
saying.
You know the
On 11 Jan 2014, at 09:28, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your consciousness condenses into here and now for the same
measure the guy in Washington feel to be in only once city after the
WM-duplication.
Read: Your consciousness condenses into here and now for the same
REASON the guy in Washington
On 11 January 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if there's
On 11 January 2014 20:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*, which
from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the 1p delay
invariance.
The UD never stops. If a process lasts
On 11 Jan 2014, at 11:01, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 20:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*,
which from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the
1p delay invariance.
Hi Bruno,
The WM experiment is easy to grasp. For me the difficulty lies, as Liz
guessed, with the infinity of possibilities. For continuation Cn does p(n)
stabilize as the number of computations approaches infinity? Are there an
infinity of possible continuations? Are they enumerable? I mean
Hi Bruno,
Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to follow you
here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one of these days but
unfortunately I barely have enough time these days to read this list.
However one thing still nags me. I don't find it hard to imagine that
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:01 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 20:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*,
which from the first person perspective is entirely given,
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as primitive.
Both emerge from the additive-multiplicative structure of arithmetic (AR),
and that structure provides the neutral stuff.
Ontological neutrality is that there are no
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*, which
from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the 1p delay
invariance.
On 11 January 2014 23:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 11:01, LizR wrote:
nor does it do anything - it's simply there, in a timeless realm.
UD* does not do anything, but we can say that relatively to the addition
and multiplication laws, the UD does something,
On 1/10/2014 11:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Hmm? Steven turns into a White Rabbit is not a /*logical*/ contradiction, it's a
/*nomological*/ one. If there's a transition from (t1,x1) to (t2,x2) it seems the only
/*logical*/ contradiction would be x2=Not x1 at t1. Logical is
On 1/10/2014 11:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what is the measure of relative persistence?
It is the measure almost defined by the material hypostases (in S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*). It
defines the comp physical laws.
How do those different logics define a measure over possible physics?
Brent
Dear Brent,
If there exit an infinite number of observers and similarities in the 1p
content of those observers is a priori possible, it follows that there will
be regularities as those are the similarities that observers share.
The brain in a vat thought experiment is an attempt to ask
On 1/11/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as primitive. Both emerge
from the additive-multiplicative structure of arithmetic (AR), and that structure
provides the neutral
Dear Brent,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 6:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as primitive.
Both emerge from the
On 12 January 2014 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Because everything is arithmetic IS neutral monism:
Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with
idealism and materialism. What
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
particular set of properties and not the rest of the properties required to
balance it all out to Nothing is not neutral. It is biased!
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
particular set of properties and not the rest of the properties required to
balance it all out to Nothing is not neutral. It is biased!
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
particular set of properties and not the rest of the
On 1/11/2014 9:33 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear LizR,
Dear Brent,
I am writing about concepts that are more fundamental than physics, but
some of the same ideas transfer from the fundamental to the phenomenal.
Physics is phenomena that we can observe and measure...
Neutrality is the absence of properties or the sum of all possible
properties.
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:
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
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant. If it is, then c is just a
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the
This is a fascinating but difficult subject - is being or becoming more
mysterious? In a way becoming is stranger than positing something that is
merely eternally there, perhaps from logical necessity. It's hard for us as
time-bound beings to imagine a block universe - or multiverse - although
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:34, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
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
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:16, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:31, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
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
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor computing
the state of the universe. In fact there is no such universe. The
universe is an appearance emerging, from below the substitution level, on
all
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
Stephen, LizR
From what I can understand, once cleared from
arithmetic-logic-metaphysic
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
Stephen, LizR
From what I can understand,
On 10 Jan 2014, at 04:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
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
On 10 Jan 2014, at 09:58, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 21:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think the question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:34, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor
computing the state of the universe. In fact there is no such
universe. The universe is an appearance emerging, from below
On 09 Jan 2014, at 20:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Bruno:
Sorry but I do not understood point seven when I read it and I do not
understand you now.
No problem. I am here to explain (or discover a flaw!).
I understand Solomonoff theorem about inductive inference that involve
infinite
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:43, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered, completely.
Stephen, LizR
From what I can
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
It is answered,
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that
Liz,
I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the
computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be
small and finite.
The moment you let the universe be very big (eternal inflation) then
you also get an infinite number of computers built by aliens in
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined - but
only for a particular point of view. So I, Terren, experience one and only
one physics, because my consciousness is the selection criteria among the
infinity of computations going through my state. But what about
Dear Terren,
Good question! I ask that you take what you wrote and add the following
question: How do Glak and Terren Communicate?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined - but
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the UDA, as
it may betray a misunderstanding on my part. But if that's not the case,
then it seems to me that I could never communicate with Glak because our
consciousnesses are selecting different universes within the
On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King
On 10 Jan 2014, at 16:23, Jason Resch wrote:
Liz,
I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the
computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be
small and finite.
OK.
The moment you let the universe be very big (eternal inflation) then
you
Dear Terren,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Stephen,
Well, I'm not sure if what I'm asking is even coherent within the UDA, as
it may betray a misunderstanding on my part.
I agree, interaction and the question of different physical laws
401 - 500 of 604 matches
Mail list logo
