Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-06-25 Thread LizR
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

Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-06-18 Thread ronaldheld
*arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf* http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348] Title: Our Mathematical Universe? Authors: *Jeremy Butterfield* http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Butterfield_J/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 17 pages, no figures, *this http URL*

Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-06-18 Thread Richard Ruquist
Nothing about only 37 bits of information available for computation in the human brain in Butterfield's paper. Richard On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: *arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf* http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348] Title: Our

Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-02-02 Thread Jason Resch
I am about 1/3rd though it now. So far it is an interesting read, and I have learned quite a bit about about cosmology. I have not gotten to any of his ideas about multiple universes or mathematical reality yet. Jason On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A

Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-02-02 Thread Richard Ruquist
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,

Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-02-01 Thread LizR
I will answer that if / when I have read it. On 2 February 2014 01:23, Ronald Held ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps has the most members in it. For another try I have read the following: arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]

Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-01-31 Thread LizR
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,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-31 Thread LizR
On 1 February 2014 06:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote: On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Meanwhile - back at the ranch: Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of matter. This is

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-31 Thread Kim Jones
On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :) Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but not quite. Both of these Brains the Size of a Planet are married though. We must try to find a

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-31 Thread LizR
On 1 February 2014 17:37, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :) Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but not quite. Both of these

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote: On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Meanwhile - back at the ranch: Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along, I'm

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-30 Thread Kim Jones
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-30 Thread LizR
On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Meanwhile - back at the ranch: Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along, I'm afraid... I think to be fair he wants to

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
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,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-27 Thread Jason Resch
On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:24 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, As many as are possible. So if it is possible that they all exist, how is that different from block time? Jason On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread ronaldheld
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar, I have a different definition of reality: what which is incontrovertiblehttps://www.google.com/search?q=incontravertibleoq=incontravertibleaqs=chrome..69i57sourceid=chromeespv=210es_sm=93ie=UTF-8#q=incontrovertiblespell=1for some collection of mutually communicating observers. I

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread LizR
On 27 January 2014 01:13, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth buying this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic universe, UDA,etc? I would hope noone here is a believer in the PU, UDA etc! We just haven't refuted

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

2014-01-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar, On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Jason Resch
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Jason, I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists. I would say that we have a concept of a present moment that we may believe that each person has. Maybe you are directing this post to Edgar... On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Jason, The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place. I try to not mistake an idea for something it represents. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen, If

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists. I would say that we have a concept of a present moment that we may believe that each person has. Maybe you are directing

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-26 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Jason, As many as are possible. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, I would not say that only a single present moment of time exists. I

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

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

2014-01-25 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar, On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, I have answered this several times but apparently it didn't register. P-time is the time IN WHICH everything that can be measured is computed. Per observer (defined abstractly and not necessarily

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar, Ah, we disagree on a few more things... On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stephen, Agreed. I suspect I'd be literally burned at the stake for my scientific heresies by some here if they had a chance! But I find it strange you'd say

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread LizR
On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar, Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of associated events to be so in our mathematical representations. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Yes, of course time is a dimension but that does NOT imply a

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread LizR
On 26 January 2014 09:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make the case using your remarks below. Good luck. You need to

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread LizR
On 26 January 2014 09:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Stephen, PPS: Sometimes I get the feeling you just go with the latest scientific breeze? Edgar On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:55:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Edgar, Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of associated events to be so in our

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread LizR
On 26 January 2014 09:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of associated events to be so in our mathematical representations. This is true of all physics. It's all mathematical representation (I hope

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar, I try very hard to not conflate mathematical/informal models of what we observe with the content of what we observe. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stephen, Strictly speaking I could agree with that because only the current point of

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Russell Standish
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

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, I am not arguing that we* canno*t treat time (the concept) as if it where a dimension. We are free to built any sort of explanatory model we wish and hope that it is consistent with what we measure. I am saying that we *should* not. Events cannot be said to be out there waiting for

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread meekerdb
On 1/25/2014 1:19 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 January 2014 09:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Strictly speaking, no, time is not a dimension. We define sequences of associated events to be so in our mathematical representations.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread LizR
On 26 January 2014 11:18, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, You lost me. Why are you and others so wedded to local realism? Because it's the simplest assumption that explains why violations of Bell's inequality are possible, Because it's a lot simpler to

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread LizR
On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Russell, I agree, this has been pointed out by many. The Schroedinger's equation uses the classical concept of time. The Wheeler-de Witt equation sums over all possible universes and leads to a vanishing of

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Russell, I agree, this has been pointed out by many. The Schroedinger's equation uses the classical concept of time. The

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread LizR
On 26 January 2014 15:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 January 2014 11:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Russell, I agree, this has been pointed out by

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, I have no idea, I gave up on such questions as they make bad assumptions, IMHO. We propose explanations for what we experience with an understanding that we cannot trust our experiences to be truthful. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 January

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-25 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, I try to (have some idea what I am talking about). I just have lost the desire to explain myself. I made my case already. On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:24 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 January 2014 15:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: I have no

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Bruno, The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it? Edgar On Friday, January 24, 2014 3:28:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2014, at 20:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Finally I agree there is NOT just a single computation going on.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
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,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread 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 to mine. I've explained mine in

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread 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 and static somehow moves (without

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Bruno, Stop making the ridiculous claim that there is only one computational reality, the UD, as if yours was the only one that could even be postulated. My computational reality is NOT the same as your 'comp', and your conclusions obviously do

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Liz, Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which Stephen has just presented to you. All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread 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! :-) Edgar On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:56:28 AM

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Quentin, Boy, this is like talking to a cult member. Only true believer personal flame attacks supporting their 'guru' with no actual substance at all. And you think it's me that shouldn't be posting on a scientific forum? Go figure! Yeah go

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread LizR
On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which Stephen has just presented to you. Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

2014-01-24 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread meekerdb
On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which Stephen

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-24 Thread LizR
Indeed. In fact he hasn't answered a whole raft of questions, preferring to make a snarky comment about one item in a post and completely ignoring the rest of it. He also doesn't think Newton and Einstein believed in block time, even though the term originates from Minkowski's unification of space

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Hi Stephen, Finally some time to get back to this interesting discussion. Sorry for the delay... No, I don't understand your argument that we can only use the notion of a single computational space if we wish to consider a timeless version of Computation? That simply doesn't follow. As long

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Hi Stephen, Finally some time to get back to this interesting discussion. Sorry for the delay... No, I don't understand your argument that we can only use the notion of a single computational space if we

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 21 January 2014 17:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, Did the notion of an Eigenform, as defined, make sense to you? I just had another look. It appears to be an infinite nest of boxes... I am probably missing something but I can't see how this relates to,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 24 January 2014 14:01, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, The infinite nesting of boxes is one of the possible products of the process that Kauffman is laboring to explain. It can be equally applied to the construction of the natural numbers by starting with

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
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),

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 24 January 2014 14:29, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: I do not see how what is by definition fixed and timeless can be considered to have any property that is an actual actionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) . Following the supplied link gives this

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of, the process. It makes sense that the product would be the opposite of the Flux, they are not the same thing. One does not start with an

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_( On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 14:32, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, The nested or tower of boxes are the result, the product of,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum mechanics: positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite states; a block universe must have all of its observables as mutually commuting

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 24 January 2014 14:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_( Then sadly it seems to be falling into Edgar-land. He can't grasp how relativity makes his idea of p-time a non-starter, and you can't grasp

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, I argue against the block universe idea as well using quantum mechanics: positions and momenta cannot co-exist as definite

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Russell Standish
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

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, I argue against the block universe idea as

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread LizR
On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote: I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already too high. And PGC had a dig at me for giving a big fat TL;DR! I'm glad

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:24 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 15:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:04 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-23 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 04:27:50PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 24 January 2014 12:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote: I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already too high. And

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Jan 2014, at 19:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and convincing reason in English. Rhetorical trick, and you don't answer to the question that I asked you. I gave everyone the proof, and I told you that the UD

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2014 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is already present in Gödel 1931, and today we know that even just one diophantine (on integeres) polynomial of degree four can emulated all computations; or be Turing universal. Just to check that

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Jan 2014, at 22:24, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stephen, OK, with these clarifications let's see what we can agree on so far. 1. Block time is a BS theory. We know we agree on that. 2. Do you agree that Bruno's USA I don't own the USA ! :) can also be discounted for the same reason

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Jan 2014, at 02:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stephen, A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later after I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of your points. You say the UDA serves a good purpose to show that there is some ontological merit

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread LizR
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste from a pdf. Can you open it in the Chrome browser? In this ontology, all

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread LizR
On 23 January 2014 02:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, Yes, there are many ontological assumptions.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 January 2014 02:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread LizR
On 23 January 2014 12:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: And the logical process, at least, re-presents the physical process. We get a closed loop if we have full algebraic closure and a bijection between the two sides of the proverbial coin. I don't know what this

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread LizR
On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, (Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just saw a cat created the cat?) Kinda! in a way, Yes. (I am not considering all othe other observers of the Cat. Think of the loop as involving a delay,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-22 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR, Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, (Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >