Re: A proper definition of reality
On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. Show me the dependence. I think you confuse the human math, with math. 17 is prime is defined without mentioning any humans. It just means that you cannot divide the line I in two or more smaller lines so as to make a rectangle. That's human not Reality math. It seems more real than humans to me. I can conceive a physical reality without human, but I cannot conceive any reality where 17 is not prime. If you can do that, please explain. The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. What do you mean by reality. It looks like physical reality, but with comp it is still an open problem to describe completely that physical reality appearance. We cannot invoke it as a primitive in an argument. You said that God = reality. I agree with this, but only because reality share with God the fact that we cannot invoke it in argument, nor even define it, etc. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. ? Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? But without the notion of prime number, arithmetic makes no sense at. And with comp we have to explain the physical from the arithmetical. Even if in the physical, prime numbers play no role, that would not invalidate the fact that physics emerges from arithmetic. All human doctors ARE digital. I meant digitalist doctor. Some doctor can be opposed to comp. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why Read the first part of the sane2004 paper, and tell me what you don't understand. may be you could tell me if you can conceive (if only for the sake of the argumentation) that you might survive, in the usual clinical sense, with an artificial computer-brain-body? It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. Church thesis makes the notion of computable into an non epistemic very solid mathematical notion. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. It is human math bearing on universal, non human, truth. The definition of intuitively computable invoke humans, but the thesis of Church, Post, Turing makes it independent of human. Indeed with comp you can substitute human by universal (Löbian) numbers. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Unless it stops, of course. here you are the one seeming to accept that a software run or stops independently of human, but this contradicts what you say above. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. ? the math shows that reality, viewed by machines or numbers, is beyond computation and numbers. Bruno Eppur si muove! Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory
Re: A proper definition of reality
On 24 Dec 2013, at 18:18, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. Really? Discovery channel would disagree with you ;-) Indeed :) In fact human is arguably a human invention. prime numbers is a modest discovery by some human mathematician, but the concept simply does not involve any dependence on humans. Edgar seems to take human and reality for granted, but those are quite higher order pattern in arithmetic viewed internally, with computationalism. Bruno The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_cicadas All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. ? Perhaps you may choose to have a closer look at UDA and Bruno's other work, as you seem to sometimes be leaning towards it. It can take awhile to wrap ones head around First Person Indeterminacy and its implications, given comp hypothesis. A better understanding of it would, even if you disagree, avoid unfruitful discussions with Reality is such and such claims, as his work doesn't make those claims, nor seeks to support or negate that type of claim. To put it roughly from my perspective, Bruno's work concerns examining consequences of mechanist hypothesis against the backdrop of the discovery of universal machines and is not philosophical in the sense of defending some interpretation of Reality over others. True, he will argue that this or that ontology is not compatible with comp, but to mix this up with Philosophy as in defending an ontological stance, is to judge too quickly, even though understandable. PGC Eppur si muove! Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you
Re: A proper definition of reality
More to the point, the product of the two cycles gives a much greater period than what their predators can track - in effect implementing the linear congruential pseudo random number generation algorithm. Evolution is very smart! Cheers On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:43:01PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote: There is also a 13 year cicada. Is it a coincidence they cycle their mass appearances on large prime numbers? It is thought that this strategy prevents predators from tuning their population cycles to those of the cicadas. Jason On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Cowboy, The fact that cicadas tend to emerge at 17 year intervals has nothing at all to do with the fact that 17 is a prime number. It's simply counting. If I find 17 cents in my pocket that's just counting - nothing at all to do with primes or prime theory. That should be obvious... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
A proper definition of reality
All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
I read Edgar's book and it is entirely words and mostly assertions- no math at all. In my opinion that makes his book not credible Richard On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
Richard, First you are wrong. There is some math in the book. Apparently you read only part of it. As for my book being composed of words, most books are for gosh sakes! And ALL YOUR posts consist ONLY of words with Zero math. Does that make them not credible or meaningful? Of course my book consists of words. It's the content of the words that's important. If you disagree with some of the content then voice your issues with specifics. That's the way science and reason work by discussing actual parts of the theories. Dismissing it because it doesn't meet your formatting specs is neither science nor reason, its just stating an opinion with no supporting evidence. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
Edgar, Even what you wrote above is entirely assertion with no basis in math or physics: Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, First you are wrong. There is some math in the book. Apparently you read only part of it. As for my book being composed of words, most books are for gosh sakes! And ALL YOUR posts consist ONLY of words with Zero math. Does that make them not credible or meaningful? Of course my book consists of words. It's the content of the words that's important. If you disagree with some of the content then voice your issues with specifics. That's the way science and reason work by discussing actual parts of the theories. Dismissing it because it doesn't meet your formatting specs is neither science nor reason, its just stating an opinion with no supporting evidence. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 to everything-list
Re: A proper definition of reality
On 24 Dec 2013, at 13:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. The theories can be real, even when they are wrong. You should quote the assertions said, as I have no idea what makes you think I said that theories does no belongs to reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Yes, indeed. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). If computationalism is correct, only a tiny part of arithmetic needs to be assumed. the rest belongs to numbers hallucination, but those are real and obey precise laws. While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational This is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whatever it is, cannot be entirely computational. Computationalism is monist, like Everett QM, but without assumption on the physical, which has to be derived from addition and multiplication (with computationalism at the meta-level). There is only arithmetic relation at the ontological level, and the rest are this arithmetical reality seen from different angle from inside. The angle are handled by the arithmetical self-reference theory. Bruno and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https
Re: A proper definition of reality
I think that you are on the right track and I both understand and agree with your view of theory and reality all being part of the same ocean - however, there is a difference between an artist painting a picture and a painting of an artist painting a picture of himself. The former can be said to be a real person, a real artist, whose body is present objectively as a body in other people's experience and subjectively as a kind of a sensory-motive fugue of experienced qualities. The latter is a real painting, but the artist which a human observer sees in the painting has no private presence and is in fact a re-presentation within the human visual-cognitive context. The person in the painting is not really an artist, and not really a thing at all, only a chromatic medium arranged to symbolize a thing *for us*. It doesn't matter how sophisticated you make the painting - turn it into a 4D holographic movie that is a front end for a conversational bot... it's still not anything but a collection of intentionally synchronized facades. Anything which is constructed in this manner, from the outside in, whose operation is controlled by the agenda of a designer is not a 'real' presence, but a puppet or doll in which a human audience is invited to project their own empathy on, like a stuffed animal or an emoticon . I see this confusion as a form of the Pathetic Fallacy. Once we have a clear picture of the difference between a doll and a person, and can see that a person is 'real' in many more senses than the doll is, we can see that even though there is more computation going on in a doll than an atom, an atom, as a whole, natural phenomenon, is more like a person than a doll is. The doll does not know that it is a doll, but an atom is the embodiment of atomic density of sensitivity. An atom detects, attracts, repels, and bonds with other atoms to make new coherent wholes. A doll's reality, by contrast, has no more whole coherence than does one of the molecules that it is composed of. It does not detect or respond to anything as a doll, but rather as a piece of plastic. The doll quality is limited to a particular audience (human beings) and a particular sense modality (dolls don't smell or taste like people, don't usually sound or feel like people, etc, they only look like dolls of people to other people). I share also the view of the single ocean of ontological energy, however I identify that energy as simple sensory-motive experience: aesthetic participation - awareness. Within awareness the ability to reflect and invert, to exclude and objectify makes any further 'energy' or 'ontology' redundant. Sense is all that is needed. Consider that the concept of computations in the brain is also not primitively real, but is in fact part of our experience as what human beings of this era in history can understand about ourselves. We are not 'computational forms in the brain', nor can computation alone cause any form or feeling. Computation is the representation of sense - it's a doll which cannot make itself real. I see this time as a time of profound misunderstanding of the world and of consciousness. The belief in computation and mechanism is too close to the inverted image of anthropomorphic religion to be considered neutral or scientific. We should see through this information dollhouse and into deeper reality of the ontology of experiential relativity - of multisense realism...but alas we may have a long run left to go. I find myself in the ironic position of seeing the other side of the very view that made so much sense to me for so long, now it has become the obstacle to overcome. Life and death, awareness and the meaningless meshing of digital gears have become indiscernible and the whole of science and art is flushed down the toilet of mindless mathematical regurgitation. /rant Craig On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain
Re: A proper definition of reality
Richard, Sure it's an assertion, just as your post is, but it has plenty of basis in physics and logic. It's a consistent part of the whole web of my theory which is quite consistent with modern physics, though not always with its current interpretations... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
Bruno, OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for thinking otherwise. However you state that This (reality is entirely computational) is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whatever it is, cannot be entirely computational. But this doesn't follow. Again you are trying to apply the results of a specialized theorem of HUMAN math to the computational logic of reality without thinking about whether it's really applicable. I agree that we are computational but that most certainly doesn't mean that reality isn't. Why would it? You seem to assume that all of reality including us is computational but that that assumption leads to a contradiction proving the premise that all of reality is computational is incorrect. But you haven't shown any such contradiction. Again the entirety of reality MUST be computational, otherwise it could never even happen as there is no way for something to happen other than it being computed. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
On 24 Dec 2013, at 16:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for thinking otherwise. However you state that This (reality is entirely computational) is logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational, but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whatever it is, cannot be entirely computational. But this doesn't follow. Again you are trying to apply the results of a specialized theorem of HUMAN math I use only simple arithmetic in the final TOE. I use also computationalism to justify the final TOE, which by itself does not use computationalism per se. I assume that simple arithmetical propositions does not depend on human's belief. 17 is prime does not depend on me and you. It is true for all creature, thinking or not. If you pretend to doubt this, I will have serious doubt about anything you could say, as 17 is prime is for me far simple and general than any other kind of propositions. We need such type of proposition to just define what is a computation. to the computational logic of reality without thinking about whether it's really applicable. I agree that we are computational So, you would say yes to a digital doctor ? but that most certainly doesn't mean that reality isn't. Why would it? Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. I am afraid you might need to add some chapters in the second edition of your book :) You seem to assume that all of reality including us is computational but that that assumption leads to a contradiction proving the premise that all of reality is computational is incorrect. But you haven't shown any such contradiction. I have explained it many times on this list (and have defended it in my PhD, it is an old story). Scientists have no problem with this, except when they do philosophy in the coffee room ... It is not difficult to grasp, but it asks for some work. I can explain it to you if you want. It is contained in the first halve of the sane2004 paper. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Again the entirety of reality MUST be computational, otherwise it could never even happen as there is no way for something to happen other than it being computed. But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Bruno On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space
Re: A proper definition of reality
Hi Craig, First thanks for your thoughtful and detailed comments. A lot of meat there and I'll respond to some of them as I think we see the implications of the initial agreement somewhat differently. First, of course there are plenty of differences between the various categories of the very varied contents of reality. No one would argue otherwise. However most of these are differences in the way the information of them is interpreted in our mental models of reality. Both the painting and what the painting is of are just computational information of different types but our minds interpret them very differently, and of course with good reason from the evolutionary POV of our effective functioning in reality. After all we can't take sustenance from a painting of a dinner. On the other hand it is certainly theoretically, and to some extent practically, possible to simulate a complete convincing artificial reality in a human mind. And in fact that is what our minds are already doing, simulating a classical physical reality completely different than the actual information reality. But this simulation is really just additional computations of information including the information expressing how we interact with the external information reality. It's all just information computations on a fundamental level, no matter how real we experience it. In fact the very realness of our experience is just the information of that experience of realness. Our minds have developed this evolutionary mental model over millions of years because it enables us to function in reality more effectively to model it the way we do. Next, you state that you view Ontological Energy (OE) as sensory-motive experience. No, OE is something that runs the universe, that runs reality, whether or not any human is present or not. But of course human experience is participation in OE, that is precisely why human experience is real and actual, but humans only partake of something universal here. Though in another sense all forms can be said to experience each other in their interactions, something I call Xperience, which I won't go into here. Finally all dolls are really real, just as all humans are, but the reality of the doll is a doll, and the reality of the human is a human. It is what the actual information forms of a thing are that determine the characteristics of its reality, but the fact that all are actually real is because they exists as information forms in the OE of reality, because their computations are running in reality. Also don't despair as your last paragraph intimates you might. The fact that reality is computationally evolving information doesn't detract from its awesome beauty and meaningfulness in the least, it enhances it! And it's not just gears and numbers, it's the actual information of all the wonderful things that exist in this glorious world in which we exist. All things are their information only, but that information is wonderful indeed! Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists
Re: A proper definition of reality
Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. *Eppur si muove!* Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within
Re: A proper definition of reality
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. Really? Discovery channel would disagree with you ;-) The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_cicadas All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. ? Perhaps you may choose to have a closer look at UDA and Bruno's other work, as you seem to sometimes be leaning towards it. It can take awhile to wrap ones head around First Person Indeterminacy and its implications, given comp hypothesis. A better understanding of it would, even if you disagree, avoid unfruitful discussions with Reality is such and such claims, as his work doesn't make those claims, nor seeks to support or negate that type of claim. To put it roughly from my perspective, Bruno's work concerns examining consequences of mechanist hypothesis against the backdrop of the discovery of universal machines and is not philosophical in the sense of defending some interpretation of Reality over others. True, he will argue that this or that ontology is not compatible with comp, but to mix this up with Philosophy as in defending an ontological stance, is to judge too quickly, even though understandable. PGC *Eppur si muove!* Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular
Re: A proper definition of reality
Cowboy, The fact that cicadas tend to emerge at 17 year intervals has nothing at all to do with the fact that 17 is a prime number. It's simply counting. If I find 17 cents in my pocket that's just counting - nothing at all to do with primes or prime theory. That should be obvious... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
On Dec 24, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, No. 17 is prime depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico- mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. This seems incompatible with what you say just below. If there is some computation in reality that terminates when it factors a number into exactly two factors then when it terminates depends on the first prime it runs across. The course taken by these platonic programs is affected by number theoretical truth. No humans needed. The computations of reality are probably pretty simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals. Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says anything about primes? Euclid Computers Recursive functions Humans Cicadas I could be wrong here but I can't think of a single example. Can you? All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them on their competence You state Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable, nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this. This doesn't compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why It seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality and thus the product of computations in mind. You need to inspect the paper Bruno cited in more detail. It sounds strange, for sure: how is digital physics self-contradictory? Yet It is the inevitable conclusion of the computational theory of mind. It took me a while to see this myself, but I think I understand it now and can help you if you have questions after reading it. Finally you state But to define computation, you need to be realist on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist. Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math telling you it can't run. Eppur si muove! In the ontology Bruno uses nothing is fundamentally non-deterministic, it only arises in first-person perspectives (which also happen to be the foundation of physics). Jason Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any
Re: A proper definition of reality
There is also a 13 year cicada. Is it a coincidence they cycle their mass appearances on large prime numbers? It is thought that this strategy prevents predators from tuning their population cycles to those of the cicadas. Jason On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Cowboy, The fact that cicadas tend to emerge at 17 year intervals has nothing at all to do with the fact that 17 is a prime number. It's simply counting. If I find 17 cents in my pocket that's just counting - nothing at all to do with primes or prime theory. That should be obvious... Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
Jason, Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an even number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant? If you meant factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that. It's likely something that only human mathematicians do. Can you think of a process in non-human nature? In my view reality computes only against actual processes. These you mention Euclid Computers Recursive functions Humans Cicadas are all examples of human not reality math except for cicadas, but there is no evidence cicadas have any concept of prime numbers, they just count up to 17. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A proper definition of reality
On Dec 24, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an even number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant? Yes. If you meant factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that. What, in your mind, determines what programs reality executes and which ones it does not? It's likely something that only human mathematicians do. What about alien mathematicians? Do you think a number is not prime until a mathematician tries to factor a number and fails? Can you think of a process in non-human nature? Before you asked for naturally occurring examples; I consider humans and computers to be natural objects. In my view reality computes only against actual processes. These you mention Euclid Computers Recursive functions Humans Cicadas are all examples of human not reality math except for cicadas, but there is no evidence cicadas have any concept of prime numbers, they just count up to 17. Natural selection chose the periods to be prime numbers because of their inherent properties. This happened long before humans entered the scene. You should see my recent posts concerning mathematical truth and primes in the how can a grown man be atheist thread. Jason Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things (generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world). While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain. The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a computationally evolving information state in reality and that is why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is, what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical' events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds. Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality includes everything that exists without exception, including thoughts and theories. But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a generalized quantum vacuum. This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical) space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the logical space or locus of reality and actuality. Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or not part of reality. There is only the different categories of reality of different information forms within reality. Edgar -- 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
