Re: Tegmark's new book

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 w

Re: Tegmark's new book

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 wrote: > *arXiv:1406.4348* [*pdf* > ] > Title: Our Mathematical Un

Re: Tegmark's new book

*arXiv:1406.4348* [*pdf* ] Title: Our Mathematical Universe? Authors: *Jeremy Butterfield* Comments: 17 pages, no figures, *this http URL*

Re: Tegmark's new book

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, Feb

Re: Tegmark's new book

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 wrote: > A consensus?!? Here??? > > Ex

Re: Tegmark's new book

I will answer that if / when I have read it. On 2 February 2014 01:23, Ronald Held 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] > Title: The Math

Tegmark's new book

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] Title: The Mathematical Universe Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT) arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other] Title: Many lives in many wor

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1 February 2014 17:37, Kim Jones wrote: > On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR 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 marrie

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR 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 cute unmarried co

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1 February 2014 06:16, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones 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 maki

Re: Tegmark's new book

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, af

Tegmark's new book

Has there been any consensus as to the value or worth in buying this book? If not so there is a numerical GR book next in the queue. Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivin

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote: On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones 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 f

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones 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 work out the prope

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 Jon

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:24 AM, Stephen Paul King > 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 wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephe

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 na

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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, I

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Jason, As many as are possible. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch 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 wou

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 d

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Stephen, > > If you say that only

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Stephen, >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Stephen, If you say that only a single "present" moment of time exists, that implies that the existence of that moment in time is entirely sufficient to explain your current experience. Now consider if the rate of flow of time slowed down, such that it took a thousand years to go from one Plank t

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Edgar, On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM, 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 > reali

Re: 1/2 step 0 (was Re: Tegmark's New Book)

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 fundame

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 27 January 2014 01:13, 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 hope noone here is a believer in the PU, UDA etc! We just haven't refuted them (yet). I can'

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 the

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Edgar, I have a different definition of "reality": what which is incontrovertiblefor some collection of mutually communicating observ

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 better.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 > > > wrote: > >> Dear LizR,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 16:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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. > Well, OK, fine by me. I didn't see a case made, only a definition / ontological assumption, which I w

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > On 26 January 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >I have no idea, I gave up on such questions as they m

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King wrote: 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. > Well, it *was* your idea, which is

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > On 26 January 2014 15:22, Stephe

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 15:22, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear LizR, > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Russell, >>> >>>I agree, this has been pointed out by many. The Schroedinger's >>> equation uses the classical

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear LizR, On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: > On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear Russell, >> >>I agree, this has been pointed out by many. The Schroedinger's >> equation uses the classical concept of time. The Wheeler-de Witt equation >> sums over all

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear Russell, > >I agree, this has been pointed out by many. The Schroedinger's > equation uses the classical concept of time. The Wheeler-de Witt equation > sums over all possible universes and leads to a vanishing of the > classical conce

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 11:18, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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 construct a local realist on

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1/25/2014 1:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 January 2014 09:55, Stephen Paul King > wrote: 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 physi

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Russell, I agree, this has been pointed out by many. The Schroedinger's equation uses the classical concept of time. The Wheeler-de Witt equation sums over all possible universes and leads to a vanishing of the classical concept of time. I have pointed to a very nice paper by Kitada and F

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 fo

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 logica

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 03:53:46PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Not at all! A block universe is a static 4 dimensional object. Am I > mistaken in this belief? A "block multiverse" is a word salad, IMHO. > Not at all! The solution of Schroedinger's equation \psi(t) given initial conditions

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Stephen, > > Strictly speaking I could agree with that because only the current point > of that dimension

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 09:55, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > 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 Brent will back me up on th

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 o

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Stephen, PS: And just because a couple of guys much LESS known than Minkowski claim time isn't a dimension does NOT make it so... 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 sequ

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 09:53, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > 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 > relativistic effects are n

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 tra

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 09:53, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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 show why time can't

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > Liz, > > Yes, of course time is a dimension but that does NOT imply a block > universe. >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR wrote: > On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >>

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 if

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> 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 >> laughs but which no on

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Edgar, Ah, we disagree on a few more things... On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 "that so far I

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Edgar, On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 human)? A bu

Re: 1/2 step 0 (was Re: Tegmark's New Book)

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 he

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 w

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 mea

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 spac

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen 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 has just p

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 c

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen 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 they have be

1/2 step 0 (was Re: Tegmark's New Book)

Edgar, On 24 Jan 2014, at 17:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I don't have to postulate this. It is consequence of the laws of addition,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen > 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 figure... >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 UTC-5,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen > 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 >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen > 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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 a

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 deta

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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, the

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 Gödel

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 computatio

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 04:27:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish 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 h

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear LizR, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, LizR wrote: > On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King >>> wrote: >>> Dear LizR, I argue against the

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish 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 other people hav

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear LizR, > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King >> wrote: >> >>> Dear LizR, >>> >>> I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum >>> mechanics: positions and mom

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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. --

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear LizR, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR wrote: > On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> 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 hav

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 24 January 2014 14:56, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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 how physics operates

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear LizR, I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_( On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:43 PM, LizR wrote: > On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of, the >> process. It makes sense that

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 stipul

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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 st

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 24 January 2014 14:29, Stephen Paul King wrote: >I do not see how what is by definition fixed and timeless can be > considered to have any property that is an actual > action > . > Following the supplied link gives this definition: In physic

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 start

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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), yo

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 24 January 2014 14:01, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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 > add

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 constructor

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 21 January 2014 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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, well, anything useful

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear Edgar, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 wish to con

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 lon

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Dear LizR, I want to explore the idea that Realities Evolve. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:36 AM, LizR wrote: > On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm. >> > > OK. (Shame because the imaginar

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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 mind? -- You recei

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 wrote: > On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> " (Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing "I just saw a cat" >> created the cat?) " >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King wrote: > 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 transf

Re: Tegmark's New Book

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 p

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 23 January 2014 12:25, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > 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 means. The obvious inferen

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >