Stephen,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
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
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 very general one. It is the particular view of any
(universal) machine. It has to be the same for any
On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
Dear Jason,
Could you elaborate on how a simulation of Stephen and Glak is related to
the 1p of Stephen and Glak. There is some ambiguity as to the relation
between the 1p view (via a simulation) that Thon would have and the 3p view
idea. I really think that the 3p concept is deeply
On 11 January 2014 04:23, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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.
Ah, yes, I think you're right. One of Bruno's steps is to imagine a
On 11 January 2014 06:06, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Terren,
Good question! I ask that you take what you wrote and add the following
question: How do Glak and Terren Communicate?
It's a good question, all right - I suspect the answer is that they can't.
Which
On 1/10/2014 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
On 1/10/2014 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto: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
On 1/10/2014 8:57 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
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
On 1/10/2014 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
QM predict a infinite small
probability for white rabbits, while yours infer a decent amount of
them until some cut criteria emerges. And that is not my work, but
yours.
QM predict all this by using comp, or an unintelligible dualist theory of
Dear LizR,
I am trying to get a somewhat complicate question out and understood. Let
me state it crudely: Given the infinite number of possible 1p content that
the UD can run, how do we obtain from the UDA or UD or UD* the situation
that we believe to be true: that there exists a space-time
Dear Brent,
Vaughn Pratt's dualist theory is consistent with QM and does show a
mechanism that prohibits White Rabbits. It is intelligible to anyone that
puts forth the effort to comprehend it.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 9:54 AM,
Dear Brent,
ISTM that your characterization of Terren's question could be analyzed in
terms of Boltzmann brains and continuations between BBs. No?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 8:57 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
It seems that the UDA
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 sigma_1 true sentences, and
he figures it out
Dear Brent!
Indeed! A theory that explains everything must be more than a list of
tautologies!
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
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 very general one. It is the particular
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 universe. In fact there is no such
On 11 January 2014 11:20, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I am trying to get a somewhat complicate question out and understood.
Let me state it crudely: Given the infinite number of possible 1p content
that the UD can run, how do we obtain from the UDA or UD
Sorry typo that should be GRB not BRB!
On 11 January 2014 12:36, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 11:20, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I am trying to get a somewhat complicate question out and understood.
Let me state it crudely: Given the
Dear LizR,
The paper (that I can't seem to find at the moment) that I am using as a
reference takes into account other sources of variation in arrival times,
for example that the gamma rays where not simultaneously emitted, and looks
also at the dispersal of the individual polarizations of the
On 11 January 2014 12:46, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
The paper (that I can't seem to find at the moment) that I am using as
a reference takes into account other sources of variation in arrival times,
for example that the gamma rays where not
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
(notwithstanding Bruno's comments) that mine and Glak's worlds would be
separated as a result of the measure of stable continuations of those
worlds... or were you making a different point?
Terren
On Jan 10, 2014 5:13 PM, meekerdb
Dear Terren,
Yes, it is about the continuations and measures thereof. I am not having
much luck discovering how the measures are defined.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
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.
Terren
On Jan 10, 2014 8:04 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Terren,
Yes, it is about the continuations
On 11 January 2014 14:02, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
(notwithstanding Bruno's comments) that mine and Glak's worlds would be
separated as a result of the measure of stable continuations of those
worlds... or were
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com 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.
If they're identical, I guess you wouldn't be able to tell the
On 1/10/2014 2:23 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Vaughn Pratt's dualist theory is consistent with QM and does show a mechanism that
prohibits White Rabbits. It is intelligible to anyone that puts forth the effort to
comprehend it.
Can you summarize it?
Brent
--
You received
On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
Could you elaborate on how a simulation of Stephen and Glak is
related to the 1p of Stephen and Glak.
The simulation provides a consistent continuation path for your first
person view. In
Lol! So that explains it.
On Jan 10, 2014 8:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:02, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure I see the relevance, except to corroborate the idea
(notwithstanding Bruno's comments) that mine and Glak's worlds would be
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? How precisely is my state specified? Imagine you have
two computations that essentially
On 1/10/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com 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
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 computations to go
through my state? How precisely
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 one thing about the UDA that seems like magic to me,
that's it - how an infinity of emulations condense
On 1/10/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if
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
identified with minds (logical, computational, numerical, etc) and the
On 1/10/2014 9:05 PM, 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 identified with
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 a very weak condition; as far as I know it just means
On 10 Jan 2014, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
On 10 Jan 2014, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
On 10 Jan 2014, at 22:57, meekerdb 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 universe. In fact there is no such
universe. The universe
Dear Bruno,
You wrote: Comp does not predict the existence of the moon, but should
predict the physical laws, that is, what is invariant for all
observers/machines.
That is the same as my definition of a reality for *all*
observers/machines!
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal
Wait, Brent may have written that and I missattributed the quote.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote: Comp does not predict the existence of the moon, but
should predict the physical laws, that is, what is invariant
On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
QM predict a infinite small
probability for white rabbits, while yours infer a decent amount of
them until some cut criteria emerges. And that is not my work, but
yours.
QM predict all this by using comp,
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, then it
does not ever complete and thus its results never
On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:23, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Vaughn Pratt's dualist theory is consistent with QM and does show
a mechanism that prohibits White Rabbits. It is intelligible to
anyone that puts forth the effort to comprehend it.
There is no FPI in Pratt, no 1p/3p
On 08 Jan 2014, at 23:53, LizR wrote:
On 9 January 2014 11:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes
as what data feels like when it's being processed - hardly a
detailed theory. He starts
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
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
Dear Edgar,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 12:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But with comp the laws of physics
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 that
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.
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
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 edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little above in which I answer
most of your questions on the nature of
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 edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little
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,
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 edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
I have some familiarity with Wolframs CA, I played
On 10 January 2014 03:04, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Edgar,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything
that exists.
I denote everything that exist as
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But the UD argument predict
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 marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at
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
On 09 Jan 2014, at 19:58, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 09 Jan 2014, at 16:30, Alberto G.
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.
On 1/9/2014 10:58 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I have to agree with Alberto on this point.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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 value is arbitrary, like
how many feet
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 QA portion is
amazing!
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered.
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 question is whether comp determines that the world is
(locally) Lorentz invariant.
On 10 January 2014 06:50, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
(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
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
computational universe to work. That single
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
Dear LizR,
Exactly. That requirement of a single computer is deeply troublesome for
me.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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 edgaro...@att.net 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, 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
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 edgaro...@att.net 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,
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 L.
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
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,
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.
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
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 edgaro...@att.net wrote:
No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in
Dear Brent,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On 10 January 2014 16:07, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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.
On 10 January 2014 17:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
Dear Brent,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:27 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/9/2014 8:26 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/9/2014 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
No Liz, I told you what it
On 1/9/2014 8:26 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 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
I plan to buy his book, but I always have my meta goal of making life better or
less despairing for people. If the book, even, unintentionally, contributes to
this, its all good, if its just number mumbling, I will always appreciate the
creativity of the abstract mind/brain at work. Enviously,
That is not physicalism IMHO that is mathemathicalism
2014/1/8 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
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?
On 08 Jan 2014, at 16:22, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
I plan to buy his book, but I always have my meta goal of making
life better or less despairing for people. If the book, even,
unintentionally, contributes to this, its all good, if its just
number mumbling, I will always appreciate the
On 08 Jan 2014, at 18:33, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That is not physicalism IMHO that is mathemathicalism
It might be mathematicalism which keeps the physicalist identity
thesis of the Aristotelian, and physicalize mathematical object. It
still ignore the FPI, the reversal with
On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes as what data feels
like when it's being processed - hardly a detailed theory. He starts his Mathematical
Universe Hypothesis from the opposite pole to Bruno, so to speak. I wonder if it's
On 9 January 2014 11:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/7/2014 10:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Max's main lacuna is the nature of consciousness, which he describes as
what data feels like when it's being processed - hardly a detailed
theory. He starts his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
Dear LizR,
Tegmark's What data feels like when it is processes seems to require
some ability to tell the difference whether it is being processed or it
merely exists as Platonic strings of numbers, No?
Did my hypothesis using Wheeler's Surprise 20 questions idea make any
sense? My claim
Dear Brent,
I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is something
real about the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of realism
that does not involve a god's eye view by appealing to the possibility of
coherent communication between multiple observers. Observers
On 9 January 2014 14:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear LizR,
Tegmark's What data feels like when it is processes seems to require
some ability to tell the difference whether it is being processed or it
merely exists as Platonic strings of numbers, No?
Hm. I'm not
Dear LizR,
Creating time indexically (or otherwise) out maps to the natural ordering
of integers will not work! We use some equivalent to a Godel numbering to
code algorithms and distinguish them from each other, no? This break the
natural order and thus making it unavailable as an absolute
On 1/8/2014 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I agree with you 100%! But that seems to imply that there is something real about
the physical. I think that we can obtain a form of realism that does not involve a
god's eye view by appealing to the possibility of coherent
501 - 600 of 604 matches
Mail list logo
