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
whole MUH fall down. But it was not to be. In particular, saying that
something significant can be made of the difference between pure and
applied maths, or is and instantiates is just simply assuming that Max
is wrong, rather than demonstrating it. I'm not sure what to make of his
electric charge example, it looks like a level confusion to me but maybe
there's something in it.


On 19 June 2014 02:06, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 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*
 http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-universe-0; 2014

  I just saw thsi.
Ronald

 On Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:31:17 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a
 State of Matter,
 my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be
 understood
 on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics-
 the former yields only a max of 37 bits
 and the latter even less.
 Richard


 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Ronald Held ronal...@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]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in
 his book?
Ronald

 --
 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/d/optout.


  --
 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/d/optout.


-- 
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/d/optout.


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* 
http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-universe-0; 2014 
  
 I just saw thsi.
   Ronald
 
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:31:17 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a 
 State of Matter, 
 my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be understood
 on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics- 
 the former yields only a max of 37 bits
 and the latter even less.
 Richard


 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Ronald Held ronal...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

 Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
 has the most members in it.

 For another try I have read the following:


  arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in his 
 book?
Ronald

 --
 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 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/d/optout.


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 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*
 http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-universe-0; 2014

  I just saw thsi.
Ronald

 On Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:31:17 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a
 State of Matter,
 my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be understood
 on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics-
 the former yields only a max of 37 bits
 and the latter even less.
 Richard


 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Ronald Held ronal...@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]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in
 his book?
Ronald

 --
 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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/d/optout.


-- 
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/d/optout.


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 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, after all...


 On 1 February 2014 07:54, Ronald Held ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Has there been any consensus as to the value or worth in buying this
 book? If not so there is a numerical  GR book next in the queue.

  --
 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: 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, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, 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]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in his
 book?
Ronald

 --
 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: 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]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in his
 book?
Ronald

 --
 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: 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, after all...


On 1 February 2014 07:54, Ronald Held ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Has there been any consensus as to the value or worth in buying this
 book? If not so there is a numerical  GR book next in the queue.


-- 
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: 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 very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along,
 I'm afraid...

 I think to be fair he wants to work out the properties of conscious
 matter, e.g. (by assumption) brains, which is in line with the SF idea of
 computronium (assuming consciousness is in some sense a computation).

 ?
 Assuming consciousness is related (and preserved) through computation,
 assumes computer, that is Church thesis.

 What is a computronium?


SF-y stuff that operates as a general purpose computer at or near the
Landaur limit.


 I share with Kim that Tegmark is well erring from his previous work,
 contradictiing his own previous mathematicalism, and succumbing to the
 identity of of what we don't understand (like many use of the quantum in
 consciousness).


Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :)

But he allows himself one mad paper for every 10 sane ones, so maybe he
doesn't actually think this is a likely idea, maybe he just had an idea and
pursued it to see if it led anywhere. I can sympathise, that is how I
produce my cryptic crosswords - they drag me along kicking and screaming
until I publish them. Writing can do the same at times, but it's a longer
process, more time for reflection...


 It contradicts his own analysis of the brain, as a hot non quantum machine.


Ah. Did he say the brain does quantum stuff (above and beyond the usual) ?
OK that is a contradiction.


 And its still ignores the comp constraints on the mind-brain identity
 thesis.

 There might be interesting insights, but all in all, it looks like a
 regression from the comp, or even just his mathematicalist picture. A
 priori.

 Hmm.

 Which isn't a completely flakey idea, because we already have
 computronium to some extent.

 We do have universal computer, yes. With Church thesis.

 He's stating that assumption up front, at least in the paper I read
 recently, and just seeing what follows.

 (Also, Tegmark's previous definition of consciousness was what
 information feels like when it's being processed which is in line with
 this approach, so he isn't making it up 100%)

 It is the materialist approach. It uses infinities not affordable by a
 comp theory. And in that paper, he use quantum information, which is
 something else? The term information should be banned, as people abuse of
 it a lot. I have that feeling sometime.  It is a term which equivocates the
 1p and 3p meaning. It looks serious thanks to the Shannon 3p meaning, and
 it looks mental because of its 1p meaning, which is related to some
 understanding.


It creeps in everywhere. Thermodynamics. Black hole information paradox.
Yet as Brent says the total amount in the universe never changes.

 If he can show how physical supervenience works, he could even be onto
 something.

 Surely! But I am not sure he even address the question. The very notion of
 conscious matter seems to elude the question, it seems to me.


Yes, he is obviously just assuming that it can be sorted out without
questioning it. But maybe he contradicts himself. I don't know.

-- 
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: 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 cute unmarried cosmologist that believes in Arithmetical realism 
to gang bang.

Kim



Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile:   0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain




-- 
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: 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 Brains the Size of a Planet are married though. We
 must try to find a cute unmarried cosmologist that believes in Arithmetical
 realism to gang bang.

 Actually I already have one  :-)

...well, apart from the unmarried part...  :D

(OK, technically his degree is in astrophysics...  but sometimes you have
to make do)

-- 
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: 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 afraid...


I think to be fair he wants to work out the properties of conscious  
matter, e.g. (by assumption) brains, which is in line with the SF  
idea of computronium (assuming consciousness is in some sense a  
computation).


?
Assuming consciousness is related (and preserved) through computation,  
assumes computer, that is Church thesis.


What is a computronium?

I share with Kim that Tegmark is well erring from his previous work,  
contradictiing his own previous mathematicalism, and succumbing to the  
identity of of what we don't understand (like many use of the quantum  
in consciousness).


It contradicts his own analysis of the brain, as a hot non quantum  
machine.
And its still ignores the comp constraints on the mind-brain identity  
thesis.


There might be interesting insights, but all in all, it looks like a  
regression from the comp, or even just his mathematicalist picture. A  
priori.




Which isn't a completely flakey idea, because we already have  
computronium to some extent.


We do have universal computer, yes. With Church thesis.


He's stating that assumption up front, at least in the paper I read  
recently, and just seeing what follows.


(Also, Tegmark's previous definition of consciousness was what  
information feels like when it's being processed which is in line  
with this approach, so he isn't making it up 100%)


It is the materialist approach. It uses infinities not affordable by a  
comp theory. And in that paper, he use quantum information, which is  
something else? The term information should be banned, as people  
abuse of it a lot. I have that feeling sometime.  It is a term which  
equivocates the 1p and 3p meaning. It looks serious thanks to the  
Shannon 3p meaning, and it looks mental because of its 1p meaning,  
which is related to some understanding.






If he can show how physical supervenience works, he could even be  
onto something.


Surely! But I am not sure he even address the question. The very  
notion of conscious matter seems to elude the question, it seems to  
me.


Bruno


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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 Jones B.Mus.GDTL

Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
Mobile:   0450 963 719
Landline: 02 9389 4239
Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com

Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain




-- 
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: 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 work out the properties of conscious
matter, e.g. (by assumption) brains, which is in line with the SF idea of
computronium (assuming consciousness is in some sense a computation).
Which isn't a completely flakey idea, because we already have
computronium to some extent. He's stating that assumption up front, at
least in the paper I read recently, and just seeing what follows.

(Also, Tegmark's previous definition of consciousness was what information
feels like when it's being processed which is in line with this approach,
so he isn't making it up 100%)

If he can show how physical supervenience works, he could even be onto
something.

-- 
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: 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, I'm afraid.

Tell me what you search, and I might recommend the best book, imo   
imt (in my taste)


To be sure, for the UDA you don't need to be a believer. You need  
only to believe the elementary law of addition, and multiplication,  
and assume that the brain is a machine. For AUDA, you need only the  
elementary arithmetic.


Bruno




Ronald

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:31:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 26 January 2014 16:27, Stephen Paul King  
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear LizR,

  I try to (have some idea what I am talking about). I just have  
lost the desire to explain myself. I made my case already.


Well, OK, fine by me. I didn't see a case made, only a definition /  
ontological assumption, which I was attempting to clarify. I guess  
if I had time to read that paper (and all the others that get  
linked) I might have had a better idea of what backs up this  
definition:


   I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and  
instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:

1) a sequence of events
2) a transition from one event to another.


--
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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 nature, rules of  
logic, and fine tuning, etc. that these all occur within. Without  
that it seems to me there could be no possible communication between  
your realities and that they would not even be part of the same  
universe.


A theory of completely separate realities not part of a single  
common reality cannot explain the fact that the laws of physics, the  
laws of logic, and the fine tuning, the laws of chemistry, the  
current state of the universe, are the same for all observers. There  
must be a common reality that includes these facts and the observers  
and their separate realities in which those observers exist for that  
to be true.


My definition of reality is simple and very general and takes these  
points into consideration:


Reality includes everything that exists, without exception, whatever  
that may be.



Including square circles?




The multiple realities you are proposing are what I would describe  
as the multiple internal mental simulations of my single reality in  
which all observers must exist to be in the same universe and  
communicate with each other.


Each of these observers will of course have his own separate reality  
VIEW and internal MODEL of that single reality, but these must  
necessarily be part of a single universe to make sense of things.



On another point you claim that computations are intractable. That  
may be true in some general human math sense but with complete  
certainty the computations that compute the current state of the  
universe are NOT intractable because they actually occur.


I don't understand. You seem to say that you assume only a non  
physical comp reality, and then you say that everything exists.


I just can't make sense of any statements you make. I don't see a  
theory. Sorry.


Bruno




Edgar



On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:17:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

Dear Edgar,

  I have a different definition of reality: what which is  
incontrovertible for some collection of mutually communicating  
observers. I find other definition of the word to be incoherent.  
Given that, let me respond.



On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:

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?


  Using the definition above, yes, but I suspect that my take on  
this question is wildly at odds with yours. My claim is that if one  
tries to mash all of the content of the observations of all possible  
observers into a single computation one would get something that is  
indistinguishable from noise, hardly a computation in the usual sense.


   What is my reasoning? Consider a pair of observers, Alice and  
Bob, in orbit of the Earth, they communicate via a satellite system  
what has a very narrow channel. Each observes a different side of  
the Earth. The content of their observations is almost mutually  
exclusive.

div class=gmail_default style=font-f
...

--
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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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  
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 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...



But you argue against block time, so how many points in time do you  
believe to exist?


Jason


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:

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 time to the next. No one  
would feel any different, as in each moment in time, still, only one  
point in time exists, and it is still the same moments (it just  
remains the present moment for a longer period of time than before).  
Since they are still the same moments, everyone's state and  
experiences remain the same.


Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at  
a single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the  
idea of a flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is  
enough to explain your experience of now, since according to this  
idea, the past and future do not exist (so what role could they play  
in effecting what you feel?)


So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our  
perception of time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely,  
it would make no difference to our brain states, perceptions, or  
conclusions, then it seems to be that postulating the flow of time  
to be ontologically or fundamentally necessary is completely  
unnecessary and without base. We cannot say if time flows, how fast  
it flows, or whether or not more than one present moment exists, so  
for what reason should we believe that the current present moment  
will disappear and be replaced with a new future moment?


The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems  
to undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.


Jason


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Dear LizR,

  Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against  
the block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try  
again to make the case using your remarks below.




On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:


Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind  
blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of  
the ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School  
just for laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take  
seriously.


But people actually do, very smart people too!

Even I do, so not just smart people.

Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe  
concept, which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics,  
is wrong.


 We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that  
Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making  
approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty  
principle and relativistic effects are negligible. There are  
metaphysical assumptions built into Newtonian physics, many of which  
survive into GR.
  One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,  
completely independent of whether or not those properties are  
measured. We know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be  
used in our reasoning.
   I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any  
good article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of  
Bell's theorem. See, for example, http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdf 
 for yourself.



Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in  
any case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block  
multiverse - all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as  
per Everett, from a deterministic evolution.


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.



The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop  
time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block  
universe means - that time is a dimension.


Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? 

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 
 step...@provensecure.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 Dear LizR,

   I try to (have some idea what I am talking about). I just have lost the 
 desire to explain myself. I made my case already.


 Well, OK, fine by me. I didn't see a case made, only a definition / 
 ontological assumption, which I was attempting to clarify. I guess if I had 
 time to read that paper (and all the others that get linked) I might have 
 had a better idea of what backs up this definition:

I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and 
 instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:
 1) a sequence of events
 2) a transition from one event to another.

  

-- 
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: 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 
better.

1. What defines or separates one of these realities from another?

2. Don't they all exist somehow as parts of some super-reality? It seems 
that whatever criteria are used to distinguish them must be a criterion 
that exists in some reality that encompasses them all?

3. How do these separate computational realities communicate with each 
other as they must if they are to computationally interact and communicate? 
If they can't then they would seem to be entirely separate universes

4. Do these separate realities correspond to separate observers? If so do 
you assume there is no actual reality outside the individual world views of 
individual observers and that individual observers exist in entirely 
separate realities?

That's enough questions to start with. Hopefully we can explore the details 
of this disagreement to the extent we can figure some test to resolve it.

Best,
Edgar

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 2:33:07 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Edgar,


 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Brent,

 I have answered this several times but apparently it didn't register.

 P-time is the time IN WHICH everything that can be measured is computed.


 Per observer (defined abstractly and not necessarily human)? A bundle of 
 instruments and recording devices would be an observer...

 By the current popular definition of computation, most physical systems 
 are know to be computationally intractable. How do you deal with that?

  

 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 
 measure time we automatically measure CLOCK TIME rather than p-time.


 CLOCK TIME = duration?

  


 Nevertheless, as I've also previously suggested several times, one should 
 be able to calculate the span of p-time back to the big bang from the 
 curvature of the universe (omega) since the radial time dimension of our 
 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe is the p-time dimension stretching 
 from the present moment (of p-time) back to the big bang.


 div class=gmail_default style=font-family:arial,helvetic
 ...

-- 
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: 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 find other
definition of the word to be incoherent. Given that, let me respond.


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 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?


  Using the definition above, yes, but I suspect that my take on this
question is wildly at odds with yours. My claim is that if one tries to
mash all of the content of the observations of all possible observers
into a single computation one would get something that is indistinguishable
from noise, hardly a computation in the usual sense.

   What is my reasoning? Consider a pair of observers, Alice and Bob, in
orbit of the Earth, they communicate via a satellite system what has a very
narrow channel. Each observes a different side of the Earth. The content of
their observations is almost mutually exclusive.
   To define an observer, Karl, that has observations that is equivalent to
a combination of those of Alice and Bob one would have a problem: How does
one combine observational content that is mutually exclusive? Well, one
could toss out as incoherent noise every bit of content from the A+B
content and keep what is left: that which is mutually consistent and
indisputable.
   Do this for an unlimited number of observers and one finds that there is
no way for Karl's content to be anything except noise! The only way to have
a collection of observers that have observational content that is mostly
coherent (not noise) is for them to be very close to each other and not
observing the equivalent of opposite sides of a sphere; they have to be
something like the points on a flat surface...
   I am trying to explain an idea from topology in conversational English
in order to make an argument: it is not possible for arbitrarily many
observers that are observing arbitrarily many things to have content that
can be combined into that of a single observer. The reason is that a single
surface can not completely cover a sphere: there will be gaps.

  Since we are thinking of the content of observations to be the product of
computations or computations itself, the inability to arbitrarily combine
many observations into one applies to computations as well: It cannot be
done. Thus it is not possible for there to be a single computation that
generates or is all observational content.


 If so then please answer a few questions so I can understand your position
 better.

 1. What defines or separates one of these realities from another?


Mutual incompatibility. A reality is stitched together by logical
consistency of the observers of that reality. Reality is observations. Can
a reality exist that does not contain any observers? No!




 2. Don't they all exist somehow as parts of some super-reality? It seems
 that whatever criteria are used to distinguish them must be a criterion
 that exists in some reality that encompasses them all?


No! Not possible as I have explained above. The only way to have a single
reality for arbitrary many observers is for that reality to be formless
and void. (That is what I take as the ontological neutral ground, by the
way.)


 3. How do these separate computational realities communicate with each
 other as they must if they are to computationally interact and communicate?
 If they can't then they would seem to be entirely separate universes


I have a weird theory of communication when considering computational
concepts. It is based on the concept of bisimulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisimulation

In theoretical computer
sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_computer_science
 a *bisimulation* is a binary
relationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation
 between state transition
systemshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_transition_system,
associating systems which behave in the same way in the sense that one
system simulates the other and vice-versa.

Intuitively two systems are *bisimilar* if they match each other's moves.
In this sense, each of the systems cannot be distinguished from the other
by an observer.



  I observe you and you observe me. Does your observations of me include
your observation of yourself? I submit that you do not observe me or
yourself. You observe a simulation of me and yourself. Does that make sense?

  Does a third party witness observe our observations or merely its own
simulation of you and me?


 4. Do these separate realities correspond to separate observers?


Yes, and combinations of realities follow the same rules as combinations
of observers. For every observer there 

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 these all occur within. Without that it seems to me there could be no 
possible communication between your realities and that they would not even 
be part of the same universe.

A theory of completely separate realities not part of a single common 
reality cannot explain the fact that the laws of physics, the laws of 
logic, and the fine tuning, the laws of chemistry, the current state of the 
universe, are the same for all observers. There must be a common reality 
that includes these facts and the observers and their separate realities in 
which those observers exist for that to be true.

My definition of reality is simple and very general and takes these points 
into consideration: 

Reality includes everything that exists, without exception, whatever that 
may be. The multiple realities you are proposing are what I would describe 
as the multiple internal mental simulations of my single reality in which 
all observers must exist to be in the same universe and communicate with 
each other. 

Each of these observers will of course have his own separate reality VIEW 
and internal MODEL of that single reality, but these must necessarily be 
part of a single universe to make sense of things.


On another point you claim that computations are intractable. That may be 
true in some general human math sense but with complete certainty the 
computations that compute the current state of the universe are NOT 
intractable because they actually occur.

Edgar



On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:17:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 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 find other 
 definition of the word to be incoherent. Given that, let me respond.


 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 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?


   Using the definition above, yes, but I suspect that my take on this 
 question is wildly at odds with yours. My claim is that if one tries to 
 mash all of the content of the observations of all possible observers into 
 a single computation one would get something that is indistinguishable from 
 noise, hardly a computation in the usual sense. 

What is my reasoning? Consider a pair of observers, Alice and Bob, in 
 orbit of the Earth, they communicate via a satellite system what has a very 
 narrow channel. Each observes a different side of the Earth. The content of 
 their observations is almost mutually exclusive. 
 div class=gmail_default style=font-f
 ...

-- 
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: 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 them (yet).

I can't say if the book's worth reading but I will probably acquire and try
to read it sometime, in which case I'll let you know my opinion.

-- 
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: 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 fundamental level of reality consists of pure abstract  
computationally evolving information in the LOGICAL (not physical,  
not dimensional) space or presence of reality.


But I don't know what is reality.

Logical is not enough ton have computations. You need arithmetic (or  
Turing equivalent).


pure abstract computationally evolving information is too vague.

Logical space does not make sense (fuzzy metaphore)

presence of reality? Too vague.





What exists here is NOT static arithmetic truth. What exists here is  
the ACTUAL computations (and nothing else) necessary and sufficient  
to compute the current state of the universe as science observes it  
and confirms it. This occurs as myriads of computations in  
interaction with each other.


Science does not observe a universe, nor can we even confirm such idea.
That there is a physical universe is a theological assumption. A  
fertile one, but it has limit in the computational theory of mind,  
which eventually has to drop that assumption.






This is a dynamic active process which occurs in a common present  
moment.


You have not replied convincingly to those who explained that common  
present moment is either quite fuzzy or even meaningless (both in SR,  
QM and just comp).


How do you extract that dynamic? Ah, I remember that you take some  
notion of time as primitive, but this is incompatible with the  
assumption of a computational mind, apparently implied by a  
computational reality.







This present moment is NOT the same as clock time.


OK. But present moment is not a physical thing at all. It is an  
experience of some possible consciousness of some relative machine/ 
number.



Clock time and all the other measurable observable information  
states of the universe are the RESULTS of these fundamental  
computations


In some sense. I can be OK with this.




which occur in the present moment of p-time.


But that makes no sense to me.





If clock time is the RESULTS of computations those computations MUST  
occur in some other type of time.


You need just elementary arithmetic. 0, 1, 2, 3, ... That is time  
enough to get all notions of time.
Then with the + and * laws, you get the observers and we can already  
asks them how do you do?.






That is the present moment.

This process is entirely independent of human observation. It is not  
a matter of perspective, though obviously every extant observe will  
have its own perspective on and internal mental model of this  
process. And observers will interpret this perspective as the  
familiar physical dimensional world.


All observers are sub-programs in this single computational reality  
which themselves continually computationally interact with the  
computations of their environments.


You can't attach consciousness to a program, except by 3-I politeness.  
The 1-I itself relies on infinitely many programs, and cannot know  
which one. Only which most probable one.






The entire universe consists ONLY of these active computations,


Computations are always active.




consists ONLY of information computationally evolving.


It relies on this + The FPI (first person indeterminacy).




The apparently physical classical world is how observers INTERPRET  
or model or simulate this information reality internally in their  
minds. They have evolved to do this to make it easier to compute  
their functioning and survival


Thus the actual reality is not physical, dimensional or material, it  
consists only of actively computationally evolving pure abstract  
information in a logical space ONLY.


logical space? which one. Why not arithmetical reality, as this  
makes your statements coherent with the standard definition of  
computations. But then you get the infinite redundancy, and the  
physical has to emerge from a statistics on all (relative) computations.





Hope that makes it clearer


It is unclear, but from what I might understand, it can't work. You  
can't assume a present moment. If your comp has any relation with  
computer, you need to explain the present moment or its appearance  
from less. The same for SR and the quantum. You can't assume them.  
That is the UDA point, so it would clarify the talk if you could say  
at which step your theory departs from it.


Bruno



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 

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 fundamental
 reality with the same laws of nature, rules of logic, and fine tuning, etc.
 that these all occur within. Without that it seems to me there could be no
 possible communication between your realities and that they would not even
 be part of the same universe.


I wonder if you understood the implications of what I wrote previously?!
I gave the definition of reality that I use and have repeatedly stated
that the notion of a reality independent of observers is incoherent to me.
I also gave a tiny sketch of how I think of communication, computation and
information; there is an interlocking reasoning to those definitions and
the ways that I am using them.
  The idea of he same laws of nature, rules of logic, and fine tuning,
etc. all come from the traditional way of thinking physics. I find that
method to be faulty and am attempting to find a better alternative.




 A theory of completely separate realities not part of a single common
 reality cannot explain the fact that the laws of physics, the laws of
 logic, and the fine tuning, the laws of chemistry, the current state of the
 universe, are the same for all observers. There must be a common reality
 that includes these facts and the observers and their separate realities in
 which those observers exist for that to be true.


If we start with a generic and non-anthropocentric notion of observers and
then consider what would they have as a common experience, we find that we
can obtain a common physics and world. We do not need to start with a World
that is out there and has innate properties. An absolute Reality would be
one that is identical to Democritus' Void, having no particular properties
at all (key word: Particular).




 My definition of reality is simple and very general and takes these points
 into consideration:

 Reality includes everything that exists, without exception, whatever that
 may be. The multiple realities you are proposing are what I would describe
 as the multiple internal mental simulations of my single reality in which
 all observers must exist to be in the same universe and communicate with
 each other.


Does your version of* reality* (I will denote it as reality_E) come ready
baked with properties?




 Each of these observers will of course have his own separate reality VIEW
 and internal MODEL of that single reality, but these must necessarily be
 part of a single universe to make sense of things.


Do your observers have experiences of reality_E that map one-to-one and
onto the properties of reality_E? I do not buy that, my reasoning follows
Donald Hoffman's arguments.



 On another point you claim that computations are intractable. That may
 be true in some general human math sense but with complete certainty the
 computations that compute the current state of the universe are NOT
 intractable because they actually occur.


Some computations are
intractablehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intractability_(complexity)#Intractability,
yes. Those that are intractable, have that because of a reason. This wiki
article is good. Read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_theory
   One of the best discussions that I have found about intractability and
physics is an article by Stephen Wolfram. I invite you to read it carefully:

http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/academic/undecidability-intractability-theoretical-physics.pdf

It is from this article and bits and pieces of ideas from many others that
I was lead to consider that our currently popular definitions of
information and computation are far too narrow and restricted. It is as if
we are stuck in a box and can only see out through a tiny slit and can
never imagine that we are actually stuck in a box in our thinking.




 Edgar



 On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:17:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 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 find other
 definition of the word to be incoherent. Given that, let me respond.


 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 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?


   Using the definition above, yes, but I suspect that my take on this
 question is wildly at odds with yours. My claim is that if one tries to
 mash all of the content of the observations of 

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 time to the next. No one would feel any
different, as in each moment in time, still, only one point in time exists,
and it is still the same moments (it just remains the present moment for a
longer period of time than before). Since they are still the same moments,
everyone's state and experiences remain the same.

Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at a
single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the idea of a
flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is enough to explain
your experience of now, since according to this idea, the past and future
do not exist (so what role could they play in effecting what you feel?)

So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our perception of
time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely, it would make no
difference to our brain states, perceptions, or conclusions, then it seems
to be that postulating the flow of time to be ontologically or
fundamentally necessary is completely unnecessary and without base. We
cannot say if time flows, how fast it flows, or whether or not more than
one present moment exists, so for what reason should we believe that the
current present moment will disappear and be replaced with a new future
moment?

The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to
undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.

Jason


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear LizR,

   Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the
 block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make
 the case using your remarks below.



 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept,
 which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong.


  We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
 Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
 approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.
   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.



 Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any
 case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse -
 all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution.


 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.



 The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop time
 evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block universe
 means - that time is a dimension.


 Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? If a block
 universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy,
 spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully
 represented as a dimension?
Trajectories of objects are curves in a space, not dimensions, at
 best they are partially ordered sets of events that have properties
 associated with them. The association is done using tangent spaces... I
 digress.
The idea that time is a dimension has been repeatedly been shown to be
 problematic by people such as Chris Isham and David Albert, I didn't just
 make up that it is a problem.




 There is no problem with change in a block universe. Change occurred in
 the past, which is a good example of a block universe. No one has refuted
 that argument as yet, and in fact they can't - the past clearly *is* a
 block universe, by all the definitions given, 

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 wrote:

 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 time to the next. No one would feel any
 different, as in each moment in time, still, only one point in time exists,
 and it is still the same moments (it just remains the present moment for a
 longer period of time than before). Since they are still the same moments,
 everyone's state and experiences remain the same.

 Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at a
 single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the idea of a
 flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is enough to explain
 your experience of now, since according to this idea, the past and future
 do not exist (so what role could they play in effecting what you feel?)

 So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our perception of
 time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely, it would make no
 difference to our brain states, perceptions, or conclusions, then it seems
 to be that postulating the flow of time to be ontologically or
 fundamentally necessary is completely unnecessary and without base. We
 cannot say if time flows, how fast it flows, or whether or not more than
 one present moment exists, so for what reason should we believe that the
 current present moment will disappear and be replaced with a new future
 moment?

 The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to
 undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.

 Jason


 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear LizR,

   Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the
 block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make
 the case using your remarks below.



 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept,
 which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong.


  We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
 Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
 approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.
   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.



 Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any
 case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse -
 all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution.


 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.



 The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop time
 evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block universe
 means - that time is a dimension.


 Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? If a block
 universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy,
 spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully
 represented as a dimension?
Trajectories of objects are curves in a space, not dimensions, at
 best they are partially ordered sets of events that have properties
 associated with them. The association is done using tangent spaces... I
 digress.
The idea that time is a dimension has been repeatedly been shown to be
 problematic by people such as Chris Isham and 

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 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 time to the next. No one would feel any
 different, as in each moment in time, still, only one point in time exists,
 and it is still the same moments (it just remains the present moment for a
 longer period of time than before). Since they are still the same moments,
 everyone's state and experiences remain the same.

 Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at a
 single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the idea of a
 flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is enough to explain
 your experience of now, since according to this idea, the past and future
 do not exist (so what role could they play in effecting what you feel?)

 So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our perception of
 time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely, it would make no
 difference to our brain states, perceptions, or conclusions, then it seems
 to be that postulating the flow of time to be ontologically or
 fundamentally necessary is completely unnecessary and without base. We
 cannot say if time flows, how fast it flows, or whether or not more than
 one present moment exists, so for what reason should we believe that the
 current present moment will disappear and be replaced with a new future
 moment?

 The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to
 undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.

 Jason


 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear LizR,

   Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the
 block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make
 the case using your remarks below.



 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept,
 which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong.


  We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
 Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
 approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.
   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.



 Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any
 case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse -
 all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution.


 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.



 The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop time
 evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block universe
 means - that time is a dimension.


 Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? If a block
 universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy,
 spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully
 represented as a dimension?
Trajectories of objects are curves in a space, not dimensions, at
 best they are partially ordered sets of events that have properties
 associated with them. The association is done using tangent spaces... I
 digress.
The idea that time is a dimension has been repeatedly been shown to be
 problematic by people such as Chris Isham and David Albert, I didn't 

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 this post to Edgar...


But you argue against block time, so how many points in time do you believe
to exist?

Jason



 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 time to the next. No one would feel any
 different, as in each moment in time, still, only one point in time exists,
 and it is still the same moments (it just remains the present moment for a
 longer period of time than before). Since they are still the same moments,
 everyone's state and experiences remain the same.

 Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at a
 single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the idea of a
 flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is enough to explain
 your experience of now, since according to this idea, the past and future
 do not exist (so what role could they play in effecting what you feel?)

 So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our perception of
 time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely, it would make no
 difference to our brain states, perceptions, or conclusions, then it seems
 to be that postulating the flow of time to be ontologically or
 fundamentally necessary is completely unnecessary and without base. We
 cannot say if time flows, how fast it flows, or whether or not more than
 one present moment exists, so for what reason should we believe that the
 current present moment will disappear and be replaced with a new future
 moment?

 The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to
 undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.

 Jason


  On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

  Dear LizR,

   Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the
 block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make
 the case using your remarks below.



 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
  wrote:


 Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind
 blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the
 ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe
 concept, which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is 
 wrong.


  We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
 Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
 approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.
   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.



 Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any
 case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse -
 all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution.


 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.



 The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop
 time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block universe
 means - that time is a dimension.


 Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? If a block
 universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy,
 spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully
 represented as a dimension?
Trajectories of objects are curves in a space, not dimensions, at
 best they are partially ordered sets of events that have properties
 associated 

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 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...


 But you argue against block time, so how many points in time do you
 believe to exist?

 Jason



 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 time to the next. No one would feel
 any different, as in each moment in time, still, only one point in time
 exists, and it is still the same moments (it just remains the present
 moment for a longer period of time than before). Since they are still the
 same moments, everyone's state and experiences remain the same.

 Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at a
 single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the idea of a
 flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is enough to explain
 your experience of now, since according to this idea, the past and future
 do not exist (so what role could they play in effecting what you feel?)

 So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our perception
 of time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely, it would make no
 difference to our brain states, perceptions, or conclusions, then it seems
 to be that postulating the flow of time to be ontologically or
 fundamentally necessary is completely unnecessary and without base. We
 cannot say if time flows, how fast it flows, or whether or not more than
 one present moment exists, so for what reason should we believe that the
 current present moment will disappear and be replaced with a new future
 moment?

 The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems to
 undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.

 Jason


  On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

  Dear LizR,

   Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against the
 block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try again to make
 the case using your remarks below.



 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:


 Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind
 blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the
 ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe
 concept, which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is 
 wrong.


  We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
 Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
 approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.
   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.



 Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any
 case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse 
 -
 all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution.


 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.



 The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop
 time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block 
 universe
 means - that time is a dimension.


 Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? If a block
 universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy,
 spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully
 represented as a dimension?
Trajectories of 

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 measure 
time we automatically measure CLOCK TIME rather than p-time.

Nevertheless, as I've also previously suggested several times, one should 
be able to calculate the span of p-time back to the big bang from the 
curvature of the universe (omega) since the radial time dimension of our 
4-dimensional hyperspherical universe is the p-time dimension stretching 
from the present moment (of p-time) back to the big bang.

This is the answer to your question.

Edgar



On Friday, January 24, 2014 9:22:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
  
 On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

 Liz, 

  Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time 
 is a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which 
 Stephen has just presented to you. 
  

  Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could they have been so stupid? 

  
  All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed 
 and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it 
 simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time 
 flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully 
 should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed
  

  Apart from constant repetition of I'm right and you're wrong you make 
 one statement in here to support your views, namely the obvious observable 
 fact that time flows. What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it 
 flow through?


 Note that Edgar has never answered my question, how do you measure an 
 interv...

-- 
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: 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 whole book, some of the ideas from which I've 
presented here, is literally overflowing with ideas original to me you 
simply won't find anywhere else

But be that as it may

I certainly do agree that there was originally a formless void that 
contained the unactualized possibilities of all possible actualities. 
That's what I call either 'ontological energy' or 'the generalized quantum 
vacuum'. It's the only view that makes sense to me and is treated 
extensively in book...

In this view the big bang was an actualization event rather than a creation 
event.

As to block time there are all sorts of demonstrations it's total BS. Take 
for example its origin. How could an entire fixed completely deterministic 
structure containing the entire history of the universe from big bang to 
final end come into being instantly somehow out of time? The block universe 
assumes that causality is an illusion since the block universe came into 
existence all at once out of time. So what CAUSED the block universe if 
causality doesn't exist? What process could have created it in the first 
place. Whatever process it was we must postulate it was OUTSIDE the 
universe which is a hugely unparsimonious and unwarranted assumption, and 
that in that outside both causality and time somehow existed

On the other hand if its frames were created sequentially that is no longer 
a block universe, but a universe in which time flows and causality produces 
subsequent frames from previous ones, which is of course the actual 
universe we observe...

Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind 
blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the 
ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for 
laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.

Edgar






On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:58:06 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 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 consider the argument that I wrote up about how we 
 must use a plurality of computational spaces and not a single 
 computational space -dimensional or otherwise, if we are going to argue 
 that computation generates the physical world. As to my argument against 
 block time, it, IMHO, boils down to an attempt to argue that our perception 
 of change is an illusion and offers no explanation for the persistence of 
 the illusion in the face of physical facts. This concept is not new, it is 
 thousand of years old, going all the way back to Parmenides- that can be 
 documented.
I favor Hericlutus' vision that Becoming is ontologically fundamental 
 and that all things in Reality come in dual pairs. This gives us a way to 
 think of the ontological foundation of existence as a property neutral Void 
 - the one thing that Democritus got right. The Void is not to be considered 
 to be static and timeless, but as the complete collection of all possible 
 forms of becoming, each of which is a Process that has, in most cases, 
 products. (To use the languaging of Gordon 
 Paskhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask
 )
  Out of this Void emerges atoms (totally disconnected topological 
 spaces) and logical structures (the Stone dual of the spaces) that have 
 arrows of evolution that point in opposite directions (as discussed by 
 Vaughan 
 Pratt in his proposed solution to the mind-body 
 problemhttp://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf). 
  
 div class=gmail_default style=font-family:arial,helvetica,s
 ...

-- 
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: 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 here is the ACTUAL computations (and nothing else) necessary 
and sufficient to compute the current state of the universe as science 
observes it and confirms it. This occurs as myriads of computations in 
interaction with each other.

This is a dynamic active process which occurs in a common present moment. 
This present moment is NOT the same as clock time. Clock time and all the 
other measurable observable information states of the universe are the 
RESULTS of these fundamental computations which occur in the present moment 
of p-time. If clock time is the RESULTS of computations those computations 
MUST occur in some other type of time. That is the present moment.

This process is entirely independent of human observation. It is not a 
matter of perspective, though obviously every extant observe will have its 
own perspective on and internal mental model of this process. And observers 
will interpret this perspective as the familiar physical dimensional world.

All observers are sub-programs in this single computational reality which 
themselves continually computationally interact with the computations of 
their environments.

The entire universe consists ONLY of these active computations, consists 
ONLY of information computationally evolving.

The apparently physical classical world is how observers INTERPRET or model 
or simulate this information reality internally in their minds. They have 
evolved to do this to make it easier to compute their functioning and 
survival

Thus the actual reality is not physical, dimensional or material, it 
consists only of actively computationally evolving pure abstract 
information in a logical space ONLY.

Hope that makes it clearer

Edgar





Strictly speaking there is 

On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:17:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Edgar,


 On 24 Jan 2014, at 17:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Bruno,

 Stop making the ridiculous claim that there is only one computational 
 reality, the UD, as if yours was the only one that could even be 
 postulated.


 I don't have to postulate this. It is consequence of the laws of addition, 
 multiplication and Church's thesis.




 My computational reality is NOT the same as your 'comp', and your 
 conclusions obviously do not apply to mine.


 Then I have missed your explanation. I don't find it.




 I've explained mine in detail in a number of posts.


 Can you copy and past one definition of your computational reality?





 And I don't answer the question can we survive with an artificial brain 
 in my theory because it is irrelevant sci fi fantasy with all sorts of 
 unstated assumptions. 


 ?


 My theory deals with reality, not with sci fi. 


 If reality is known by you, you will have some difficulty to learn 
 anything.




 However I've already stated the strict answer to the question as stated 
 and with the normal theoretical (and totally impracticable) assumptions is 
 'yes, of course', 


 Ah!

 We progress.

 By saying that you can survive with an artificial brain, which I meant a 
 digital universal machine, you have accepted one half of the assumption. 
 The second half is Church thesis, which is an important assumption in 
 computability theory. 
 I have a feeling that you 
 ...

-- 
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: 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 human)? A bundle of
instruments and recording devices would be an observer...

By the current popular definition of computation, most physical systems
are know to be computationally intractable. How do you deal with that?



 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
 measure time we automatically measure CLOCK TIME rather than p-time.


CLOCK TIME = duration?




 Nevertheless, as I've also previously suggested several times, one should
 be able to calculate the span of p-time back to the big bang from the
 curvature of the universe (omega) since the radial time dimension of our
 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe is the p-time dimension stretching
 from the present moment (of p-time) back to the big bang.


That would be a very big number unless the computational space computes
infinitely fast and has infinite resources... 




 This is the answer to your question.

 Edgar



 On Friday, January 24, 2014 9:22:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:

 On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@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 they have been so stupid?


  All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something
 fixed and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but
 it simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that
 time flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that
 rightfully should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was
 proposed


  Apart from constant repetition of I'm right and you're wrong you make
 one statement in here to support your views, namely the obvious observable
 fact that time flows. What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it
 flow through?


 Note that Edgar has never answered my question, how do you measure an
 interv...

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 that so far I have not seen anything
 original in your proposal. Everyone else here condemns me because my ideas
 are TOO original! My whole book, some of the ideas from which I've
 presented here, is literally overflowing with ideas original to me you
 simply won't find anywhere else


OK.




 But be that as it may

 I certainly do agree that there was originally a formless void that
 contained the unactualized possibilities of all possible actualities.
 That's what I call either 'ontological energy' or 'the generalized quantum
 vacuum'. It's the only view that makes sense to me and is treated
 extensively in book...


Is there any relation between the Computational space and the generalized
quantum vacuum- to use your concepts and not mine? I do not relate the
Void to any physical property. It is an ontological idea, metaphysical
even. It is the neutral 'ground' prior to all distinctionings and has no
particular properties.
  All things emerge as dual pairs from it.


 In this view the big bang was an actualization event rather than a
 creation event.


I think that the big bang is a reification of a religious creation myth.
 The appearance of a universe of stuff that is expanding and the inference
that at some epoch it was all concentrated into a point is an observation,
it is not necessarily what is out there independent of observers. The
notion of an objective reality separate from observation is, IMHO, a
figment of our imaginations.


 As to block time there are all sorts of demonstrations it's total BS. Take
 for example its origin. How could an entire fixed completely deterministic
 structure containing the entire history of the universe from big bang to
 final end come into being instantly somehow out of time? The block universe
 assumes that causality is an illusion since the block universe came into
 existence all at once out of time. So what CAUSED the block universe if
 causality doesn't exist? What process could have created it in the first
 place. Whatever process it was we must postulate it was OUTSIDE the
 universe which is a hugely unparsimonious and unwarranted assumption, and
 that in that outside both causality and time somehow existed


It seems that many just assume that it, the universe of stuff - planets,
trees, galaxies, EMF, etc.- exists and don't ask how it got to be -other
than some version of another of a just so story that we have learned to
dress up with fancy mathematics.
   Many people buy into the idea that what we observe is what is somehow
and ignore the mountains of evidence and logical that would tell them
otherwise. I don't. I claim that what we observe, that content of our 1st
person experience, can be described as a simulation created by our minds
running on our brains and is not what is out there at all. 


 On the other hand if its frames were created sequentially that is no
 longer a block universe, but a universe in which time flows and causality
 produces subsequent frames from previous ones, which is of course the
 actual universe we observe...


We cannot escape from the experience of a flow of events. How that comes
to pass is a mystery. The best we can do, IMHO, is to invent explanations
that are capable of predicting some unknown, test for such, find errors,
improve our explanations, rinse and repeat. There is no substitute for
'science'.


 Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind
 blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the
 ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.



But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Edgar






 On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:58:06 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 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 consider the argument that I wrote up about how we
 must use a plurality of computational spaces and not a single
 computational space -dimensional or otherwise, if we are going to argue
 that computation generates the physical world. As to my argument against
 block time, it, IMHO, boils down to an attempt to argue that our perception
 of change is an illusion and offers no explanation for the persistence of
 the illusion in the face of physical facts. This concept is not new, it is
 thousand of years old, going all the way back to Parmenides- that can be
 documented.
I favor Hericlutus' vision that 

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
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


Even I do, so not just smart people.

Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept,
which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong. Your
attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any case QM
works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse - all the
quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
deterministic evolution. The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or
whatever) doesn't stop time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That
is all 'block universe means - that time is a dimension.

There is no problem with change in a block universe. Change occurred in the
past, which is a good example of a block universe. No one has refuted that
argument as yet, and in fact they can't - the past clearly *is* a block
universe, by all the definitions given, one that extends from the big bang
to just before the present. The logical inference is that it continues
through the present into the future, and our feeling that time flows is
an illusion (no one has ever explained what that metaphor means, by the
way, except with reference to a second time stream - but that just moves
the block universe from 4D to 5D).

The argument from incredulity has never worked very well in science. A lot
of things that people couldn't get their heads around turned out to be
true. But for most physicists the BU isn't one of them, it has long been
understood and accepted. Anyone who draws a graph with a time axis
implicitly accepts it. Anyone who describes time as a dimension implicitly
accepts it. No sensible alternative has ever been proposed. Saying that it
doesn't explain becoming is disproved with reference to the past - clearly
things became other things in the past.

-- 
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: 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 if we take the universe as a 4-dimensional hypersphere with time the 
radial dimension, the real actual universe is only the present moment 
SURFACE of that hypersphere, and DOES NOT include the past interior.

I know you won't accept this model but my point is simply to demonstrate 
that time being a dimension does NOT necessarily imply a block universe.

AND you keep claiming that both Newton and Einstein believed in a block 
universe but you weren't able to produce any references supporting that. 

Do you actually have any, or is this just an assumption on your part?

Edgar




On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:18:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King 
 step...@provensecure.comjavascript:
  wrote:


 Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind 
 blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of the 
 ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School just for 
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!

  
 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept, 
 which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong. Your 
 attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any case QM 
 works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse - all the 
 quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a 
 deterministic evolution. The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or 
 whatever) doesn't stop time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That 
 is all 'block universe means - that time is a dimension.

 There i
 ...

-- 
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: 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 block
 universe.

 That is because only the present moment of the time dimension actually
 exists. This simply means the past no longer exists, and the future has
 never yet existed. Reality exists only in the present moment.

 Thus if we take the universe as a 4-dimensional hypersphere with time the
 radial dimension, the real actual universe is only the present moment
 SURFACE of that hypersphere, and DOES NOT include the past interior.

 I know you won't accept this model but my point is simply to demonstrate
 that time being a dimension does NOT necessarily imply a block universe.

 AND you keep claiming that both Newton and Einstein believed in a block
 universe but you weren't able to produce any references supporting that.

 Do you actually have any, or is this just an assumption on your part?

 Edgar




 On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:18:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King step...@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
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept,
 which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong. Your
 attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any case QM
 works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse - all the
 quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution. The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or
 whatever) doesn't stop time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That
 is all 'block universe means - that time is a dimension.

 There i
 ...

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 show why time can't be treated as a dimension
(without using the concept in your argument).





 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept,
 which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong.


  We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
 Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
 approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.
   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.



 Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any
 case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse -
 all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution.


 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.



 The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop time
 evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block universe
 means - that time is a dimension.


 Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? If a block
 universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy,
 spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully
 represented as a dimension?
Trajectories of objects are curves in a space, not dimensions, at
 best they are partially ordered sets of events that have properties
 associated with them. The association is done using tangent spaces... I
 digress.
The idea that time is a dimension has been repeatedly been shown to be
 problematic by people such as Chris Isham and David Albert, I didn't just
 make up that it is a problem.




 There is no problem with change in a block universe. Change occurred in
 the past, which is a good example of a block universe. No one has refuted
 that argument as yet, and in fact they can't - the past clearly *is* a
 block universe, by all the definitions given, one that extends from the big
 bang to just before the present. The logical inference is that it continues
 through the present into the future, and our feeling that time flows is
 an illusion (no one has ever explained what that metaphor means, by the
 way, except with reference to a second time stream - but that just moves
 the block universe from 4D to 5D).


   I disagree. We forget that when we think of a 4d object we are involved
 with it, we are associating change with features of it. They are not in
 it. Our thinking using this idea only re-enforces the mistake that we can
 observe things in a way that is 1) faithful to what is actually out there
 and 2) that our observations are passive. No work is required nor
 disturbance of the observed occurs.
   This thinking is wrong.




 The argument from incredulity has never worked very well in science.


 Could you point to an example of an argument from incredulity so that I
 might understand how you are claiming that my arguement is such?



  A lot of things that people couldn't get their heads around turned out
 to be true. But for most physicists the BU isn't one of them, it has long
 been understood and accepted. Anyone who draws a graph with a time axis
 implicitly accepts it. Anyone who describes time as a dimension implicitly
 accepts it. No sensible alternative has ever been proposed. Saying that it
 doesn't explain becoming is disproved with reference to the past - clearly
 things became other things in the past.


 I have proposed a sketch of an alternative, it may not be sensible yet...
 I welcome 

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 trace does not exist.

So if you want to define a dimension by a single moving point time is a 
dimension (which is mathematically valid of course), otherwise it is not.

See my explanation with details above...

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 mathematical representations. 


 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Liz,

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

 That is because only the present moment of the time dimension actually 
 exists. This simply means the past no longer exists, and the future has 
 never yet existed. Reality exists only in the present moment.

 Thus if we take the universe as a 4-dimensional hypersphere with time the 
 radial dimension, the real actual universe is only the present moment 
 SURFACE of that hypersphere, and DOES NOT include the past interior.

 I know you won't accept this model but my point is simply to demonstrate 
 that time being a dimension does NOT necessarily imply a block universe.

 AND you keep claiming that both Newton and Einstein believed in a block 
 universe but you weren't able to produce any references supporting that. 

 Do you actually have any, or is this just an assumption on your part?

 Edgar




 On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:18:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.comwrote:

 blockquote style=margin:0p

 ...

-- 
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: 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
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.


Of course we know it's wrong. I only mentioned Newton because Edgar called
the idea moronic. Since Newton used it, Edgar obivously thinks Newton was
a moron. I'm sure Newton would have repaid the compliment.


   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.


No, we assume it on the basis of the Aspect experiment and similar
experiments.


I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.

 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
logically possible to explain violations of Bell's inequality while
preserving realism and locality.

It also fits in with the block universe cnocept, by the way.

One of the reasons physicists are so wedded to the BU concept, by the way,
is that no coherent alternative has ever been proposed (except for ones
that require extra, unecessary, time dimensions).

-- 
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: 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 sequences of 
 associated events to be so in our mathematical representations. 


 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Liz,

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

 That is because only the present moment of the time dimension actually 
 exists. This simply means the past no longer exists, and the future has 
 never yet existed. Reality exists only in the present moment.

 Thus if we take the universe as a 4-dimensional hypersphere with time the 
 radial dimension, the real actual universe is only the present moment 
 SURFACE of that hypersphere, and DOES NOT include the past interior.

 I know you won't accept this model but my point is simply to demonstrate 
 that time being a dimension does NOT necessarily imply a block universe.

 AND you keep claiming that both Newton and Einstein believed in a block 
 universe but you weren't able to produce any references supporting that. 

 Do you actually have any, or is this just an assumption on your part?

 Edgar




 On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:18:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.comwrote:

 blockquote style=mar

 ...

-- 
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: 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 mathematical representations. 


 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Liz,

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

 That is because only the present moment of the time dimension actually 
 exists. This simply means the past no longer exists, and the future has 
 never yet existed. Reality exists only in the present moment.

 Thus if we take the universe as a 4-dimensional hypersphere with time the 
 radial dimension, the real actual universe is only the present moment 
 SURFACE of that hypersphere, and DOES NOT include the past interior.

 I know you won't accept this model but my point is simply to demonstrate 
 that time being a dimension does NOT necessarily imply a block universe.

 AND you keep claiming that both Newton and Einstein believed in a block 
 universe but you weren't able to produce any references supporting that. 

 Do you actually have any, or is this just an assumption on your part?

 Edgar




 On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:18:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.comwrote:

 blockquote style=mar

 ...

-- 
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: 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
Brent will back me up on this...)

Picking on time and saying it's just a mathematical representation
doesn't get us anywhere. It's our best available mathematical
representation - the one that has the most explanatory power. Unless you
can get to a more powerful explanation by removing this assumption, I can't
see why you would do it. (Please note that a more powerful explanations
would have to solve problems that exist, not ones that are covered
perfectly well by the existing explanation, like becoming).

-- 
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: 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 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 trace does not exist.

 So if you want to define a dimension by a single moving point time is a
 dimension (which is mathematically valid of course), otherwise it is not.

 See my explanation with details above...

 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 mathematical representations.


 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

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

 That is because only the present moment of the time dimension actually
 exists. This simply means the past no longer exists, and the future has
 never yet existed. Reality exists only in the present moment.

 Thus if we take the universe as a 4-dimensional hypersphere with time the
 radial dimension, the real actual universe is only the present moment
 SURFACE of that hypersphere, and DOES NOT include the past interior.

 I know you won't accept this model but my point is simply to demonstrate
 that time being a dimension does NOT necessarily imply a block universe.

 AND you keep claiming that both Newton and Einstein believed in a block
 universe but you weren't able to produce any references supporting that.

 Do you actually have any, or is this just an assumption on your part?

 Edgar




 On Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:18:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.comwrote:

 blockquote style=margin:0p

 ...

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
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: 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 \psi(0) is a block multiverse. 

Even a solution to the Wheeler-de Witt equation (which is time
independent) could be said to be a block multiverse.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: 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
logically possible to explain violations of Bell's inequality while
preserving realism and locality.

Umm, thermodynamics... Sure, our mathematical models of physical laws are
such that they are piece-wise time symmetric, but a mountain of paper has
been used arguing that micro-reversibility of physical laws does not
support local realism.

  I invite you to read Donald Hoffman's paper on perception.
http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf
He makes a very good case that Nature does not select for truthful 1p
content, it selects for content that maximizes fitness. Local realism is
yet another figment of our imagination, IMHO.


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:12 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.


 Of course we know it's wrong. I only mentioned Newton because Edgar called
 the idea moronic. Since Newton used it, Edgar obivously thinks Newton was
 a moron. I'm sure Newton would have repaid the compliment.


   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.


 No, we assume it on the basis of the Aspect experiment and similar
 experiments.


I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.

 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
 logically possible to explain violations of Bell's inequality while
 preserving realism and locality.

 It also fits in with the block universe cnocept, by the way.

 One of the reasons physicists are so wedded to the BU concept, by the way,
 is that no coherent alternative has ever been proposed (except for ones
 that require extra, unecessary, time dimensions).

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 us to
experience them (the main reason why I argue that the block universe
concept is bad fiction.). QM's general non-commutativity of observables
does not permit this line of reasoning.
   Evidence for this can be found in the area of the delayed choice
experiment and tests for the violation of Bell's theorem. My main argument
is that our explanatory models must start with experimental facts, not
myths wrapped in fancy math.


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 show why time can't be treated as a dimension
 (without using the concept in your argument).





 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take seriously.


 But people actually do, very smart people too!


 Even I do, so not just smart people.

 Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe concept,
 which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, is wrong.


  We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
 Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
 approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty principle and
 relativistic effects are negligible. There are metaphysical assumptions
 built into Newtonian physics, many of which survive into GR.
   One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
 completely independent of whether or not those properties are measured. We
 know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be used in our
 reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any good
 article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of Bell's
 theorem. See, for example,
 http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdffor
  yourself.



 Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in any
 case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block multiverse -
 all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as per Everett, from a
 deterministic evolution.


 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.



 The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop time
 evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block universe
 means - that time is a dimension.


 Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur? If a block
 universe is all that exists, what is doing the action of mapping energy,
 spin, charge, etc. measures to a sequence of points that can be faithfully
 represented as a dimension?
Trajectories of objects are curves in a space, not dimensions, at
 best they are partially ordered sets of events that have properties
 associated with them. The association is done using tangent spaces... I
 digress.
The idea that time is a dimension has been repeatedly been shown to be
 problematic by people such as Chris Isham and David Albert, I didn't just
 make up that it is a problem.




 There is no problem with change in a block universe. Change occurred in
 the past, which is a good example of a block universe. No one has refuted
 that argument as yet, and in fact they can't - the past clearly *is* a
 block universe, by all the definitions given, one that extends from the big
 bang to just before the present. The logical inference is that it continues
 through the present into the future, and our feeling that time flows is
 an illusion (no one has ever explained what that metaphor means, by the
 way, except with reference to a second time stream - but that just moves
 the block universe from 4D to 5D).


   I disagree. We forget that when we think of a 4d object we are involved
 with it, we are associating change with features of it. They are not in
 it. Our thinking using this idea only re-enforces the mistake that we can
 observe things in a way that is 1) faithful to what is actually out there
 and 2) that our observations are passive. No work is required nor
 disturbance of the observed occurs.
   This thinking is wrong.




 The 

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 Fletcher http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027 that discusses this in
detail.

   I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and instead
focus on what the concept is trying to denote:
1) a sequence of events
2) a transition from one event to another.

  A theory of time that does not explain how events are ordered into
sequences in a way that does not violate empirical evidence and what is the
nature of the transition effect are, IMHO, doomed.



On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:

 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 \psi(0) is a block multiverse.

 Even a solution to the Wheeler-de Witt equation (which is time
 independent) could be said to be a block multiverse.

 Cheers






 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
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: 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.


This is true of all physics. It's all mathematical representation (I hope Brent will 
back me up on this...)


Yep, it's models all the way down (or at least to the turtle).

Brent



Picking on time and saying it's just a mathematical representation doesn't get us 
anywhere. It's our best available mathematical representation - the one that has the 
most explanatory power. Unless you can get to a more powerful explanation by removing 
this assumption, I can't see why you would do it. (Please note that a more powerful 
explanations would have to solve problems that exist, not ones that are covered 
perfectly well by the existing explanation, like becoming).


--
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: 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 construct a local
realist ontology with time symmetry than one that requries mysterious FTL
connections or a mysterious lack of properties, and then has to use some
myseterious hand waving about macroscopic stuff like thermodynamics that
isn't even applicable so it can justify ignoring the simplest available
explanation.


 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
 logically possible to explain violations of Bell's inequality while
 preserving realism and locality.

 Umm, thermodynamics... Sure, our mathematical models of physical laws are
 such that they are piece-wise time symmetric, but a mountain of paper has
 been used arguing that micro-reversibility of physical laws does not
 support local realism.


Contrariwise. I've already argued this in some detail, and I have limited
time, but briefly, we only observe BI violations in experiments that are
carefully constructed to avoid the effects of thermodynamics (e.g. pairs of
entangled photons). We construct a situation where micro-reversibility is
going to show up (if it does anywhere) and then wonder why the results
appear odd when we use macroscopic (thermodynamic) reasoning! The reason
is, those photon pairs are going to show up micro-symmetry if anything
does, because photons aren't complicated macro structures with a memory of
the past.


   I invite you to read Donald Hoffman's paper on perception.
 http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf
 He makes a very good case that Nature does not select for truthful 1p
 content, it selects for content that maximizes fitness. Local realism is
 yet another figment of our imagination, IMHO.


Sorry ironically no time to read yet more papers, plus I'm using very basic
physics here, and perception is a high level phenomenon. Time symmetry is
just used to explain low level stuff like photon counting, are you saying
Aspect etc aren't seeing the truth ? (If so you just shot yourself in the
foot since that is the sort of experiment that apparently shows no local
realism!)

-- 
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: 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 the
 classical concept of time. I have pointed to a very nice paper by Kitada
 and Fletcher http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027 that discusses this in
 detail.

I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and
 instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:
 1) a sequence of events
 2) a transition from one event to another.


From this I picture a series of events - Hoylean pigeon holes, say - with
something between them - a flashlight being moved, say - called
transitions. This indicates time is made of two distinct things. A sort
of railway line of time, with moments clicking when you go over the joins
between the rails, and smooth rails - transitions - in between each
event.

Is that (very roughly and metaphorically) your intention?

If we assume classical physics for a moment, there are no transitions in
a 4D manifold, just positions along worldlines, which form a continuum in
the classical limit. However, if we move to quantum theory, it's possible
to get transitions - quantum steps from one state to another, like an
electron jumping energy levels inside an atom. However, splitting time up
using quantum transitions seems arbitary, since there is no known
synchronisation tying them together. In between quantum transitions a free
electron will describe a classical path (or rather a whole bunch of them).
What it *doesn't* do, to the best of our knowledge, is describe a series of
events + transitions. The same is true of any quantum object, except when
it changes state. And we're made of quantum objects, so ...

So why do you want to make time out to have this nature, when it's far from
obvious that it does? (Indeed the very idea doesn't make much sense if you
bring in Lorentz invariance and the order of these events and
transitions get all mixed up.)

-- 
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: 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 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 Fletcher http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027 that discusses this in
 detail.

I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and
 instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:
 1) a sequence of events
 2) a transition from one event to another.


 From this I picture a series of events - Hoylean pigeon holes, say -
 with something between them - a flashlight being moved, say - called
 transitions. This indicates time is made of two distinct things. A sort
 of railway line of time, with moments clicking when you go over the joins
 between the rails, and smooth rails - transitions - in between each
 event.


Is that (very roughly and metaphorically) your intention?

 No. I don't buy the idea that events or stuffed pigeon holes or what
ever is outthere existing with no explanation and that our conscious
experience involves some mysterious transitioning from one set to another.
I think there we have taken the movie projector metaphor too literally...

  Most of my current metaphors come from the world of computers, real
computers and from people that write code for them (genuflect toward
Russell).

 



 If we assume classical physics for a moment, there are no transitions in
 a 4D manifold, just positions along worldlines, which form a continuum in
 the classical limit. However, if we move to quantum theory, it's possible
 to get transitions - quantum steps from one state to another, like an
 electron jumping energy levels inside an atom. However, splitting time up
 using quantum transitions seems arbitary, since there is no known
 synchronisation tying them together. In between quantum transitions a free
 electron will describe a classical path (or rather a whole bunch of them).
 What it *doesn't* do, to the best of our knowledge, is describe a series
 of events + transitions. The same is true of any quantum object, except
 when it changes state. And we're made of quantum objects, so ...

 So why do you want to make time out to have this nature, when it's far
 from obvious that it does? (Indeed the very idea doesn't make much sense if
 you bring in Lorentz invariance and the order of these events and
 transitions get all mixed up.)



A really smart guy that I respect has shown how to derive Lorentz group
relations and invariance starting from a simple notion of observers and
relations among them. There is not need to assume that there is something
out there independent of them that has some particular set of
attributes.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 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 Fletcher http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027 that discusses
 this in detail.

I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and
 instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:
 1) a sequence of events
 2) a transition from one event to another.


 From this I picture a series of events - Hoylean pigeon holes, say -
 with something between them - a flashlight being moved, say - called
 transitions. This indicates time is made of two distinct things. A sort
 of railway line of time, with moments clicking when you go over the joins
 between the rails, and smooth rails - transitions - in between each
 event.


 Is that (very roughly and metaphorically) your intention?

 No. I don't buy the idea that events or stuffed pigeon holes or what ever
 is outthere existing with no explanation and that our conscious
 experience involves some mysterious transitioning from one set to another.
 I think there we have taken the movie projector metaphor too literally...


Well, OK - so what *is* this sequence of events and transitions, then?

-- 
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: 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 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 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 Fletcher http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027 that
 discusses this in detail.

I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and
 instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:
 1) a sequence of events
 2) a transition from one event to another.


 From this I picture a series of events - Hoylean pigeon holes, say -
 with something between them - a flashlight being moved, say - called
 transitions. This indicates time is made of two distinct things. A sort
 of railway line of time, with moments clicking when you go over the joins
 between the rails, and smooth rails - transitions - in between each
 event.


 Is that (very roughly and metaphorically) your intention?

 No. I don't buy the idea that events or stuffed pigeon holes or what
 ever is outthere existing with no explanation and that our conscious
 experience involves some mysterious transitioning from one set to another.
 I think there we have taken the movie projector metaphor too literally...


 Well, OK - so what *is* this sequence of events and transitions, then?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 idea, I gave up on such questions as they make bad
 assumptions, IMHO. We propose explanations for what we experience with an
 understanding that we cannot trust our experiences to be truthful.


 Well, it *was* your idea, which is why I expected you to have some idea
 of what you were talking about! :)

 Unless you gave up on it in the tiem since you made that last post...?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 computational reality for all the  
computational results to manifest in the same universe.


OK. But it does not need to be physical. In fact nobody can define  
physical computation without using the arithmetical notion.  
Arithmetic provides a simple realm containing all computations. The  
physical appearance can be (and must be, by UDA) explained from it.


1. There is a single fundamental computational reality which  
includes myriads of individual computations?


Yes, indeed. A tiny part of arithmetic (sigma_1 arithmetic) contains  
*all* possible computations. It is a consequence of Church thesis, or  
of Turing definition of computations.





2. This fundamental computational reality includes the attribute of  
becoming?


In the first person view that we can attribute to relative numbers,  
once we bet on comp.





3. The current state of the universe is the current result of all  
these computations?


This is ambiguous. The current state of the universe is the relative  
state defined by the FPI on all computations, when you are in your  
current ste comp state. This works for all states, and current  
becomes an indexical.





4. The 'physical world' in which we experience our existence is an  
internal mental interpretation (representation or simulation  
whichever term you prefer) of an observer's interaction with the  
fundamental computational reality?


It uses more than the computational. The FPI is not computable.



Remember even QM agrees there is no physical world in the sense of   
the classical world of our mental model but actually consists only  
of colorless interacting wavefunctions, that in essence it's just  
active mathematical processes... So we should be able to agree the  
classical material physical dimensional world exists in our minds  
rather than 'out there' in the universe


The rabbit hole is deeper, if you take comp seriously into account.

Bruno




Bruno


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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 Gödel's theorem can be  
proved in arithmetic (= by PA itself), you should not have too much  
difficulty to conceive that the sigma_1 number relations constitute  
a universal system, and thus emulate all Turing machines and brains.  
Then AR does the rest (assuming comp 'course).


  We differ most in our interpretation of the word emulate.


That is related to our difference on computation, but I stick with the  
standard mathematical definitions. I invite you to change the word if  
you change the concept.



For me, an emulation implies some form of physical activity that  
acts as the energetic motivation of the functions that are  
isomorphic to the universal system.


I use x emulates y on z, if phi_x (y, z) is executed in arithmetic or  
y some other universal number.




My reasoning here is a process based interpretation of the Stone  
duality: physical systems are to Stone spaces what logical systems  
are to Boolean algebras. The isomorphism between a BA and a Stone  
space S(BA) need not be a strictly bijection.
   Thus when you write: emulates a universal system, I parse this  
as some physical system implements the isomorph of the logical  
universal system.


There are no universal logical system.




   I do not see how what is by definition fixed and timeless can be  
considered to have any property that is an actual action.


Then I don't even understand your use of the Stone duality. If that is  
not  timeless ...




Numbers can *represent* actions, but they are most definitely NOT  
actions; there is no evolution associated with them, again, by  
definition.


Same for the Stone duality.



   My definition of computation reflects this reasoning as well. It  
says that the evolution of a physical system is dual to a  
computation of the set of representations of that system.
   This also requires a weakening of the notion of computational  
independence: A universal computation is independent of any  
particular physical implementation, but it is not independent of the  
class of all physical implementations.


Without defining physical from arithmetic (or any universal number)  
you can't satisfy the comp exoplanation of consciousness.


Bruno







On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:29, LizR wrote:

On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Dear Bruno,

I do not claim that UDA is flawed. I claim it is incomplete and  
based on a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one  
can reason as if the physical world does not exist and discuss  
ideas that imply the existence of Becoming and measures there of  
(time) all the while using axioms that forbid their existence. It  
is the sound of one hand clapping in a mind that cannot imagine air.


I don't see why any of AR implies the existence of becoming.


OK. See below.




Nor do I understand how Bruno gets computations out indexically.



I don't get the computation indexically, unless you mean the indices  
of the phi_i.
Indexical was referring to the mathematics of self-reference used in  
AUDA. It is the one obeying G and G*, and whose variants gives the  
person points of view (including the physical one).


That the computation are emulated through number relations in  
arithmetic is quite standard. It is already almost explicit in Gödel  
1931, although nitpickers could say this only appears really  
officially in Hilbert and Bernays.


It is technically easy, but long and tedious to do that in detail.  
When done, there can be some opposition coming from the fact that  
people confuse computations (the abstract notion), and their  
description in term of numbers.


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), you should not have too much  
difficulty to conceive that the sigma_1 number relations constitute  
a universal system, and thus emulate all Turing machines and brains.  
Then AR does the rest (assuming comp 'course).


And then you have your explanation of becoming, up to one serious  
but fertile difficulty.
Indeed, once you understand that all subjective experiences, which  
include the subjective feeling of becoming, are emulated in  
arithmetic, the illusion of becoming is explained.


The problem is that by the FPI, we must still explain the  
statistical persistence of such feelings, and here UDA explains that  
such persistence can only come from the relative FPI, which can be  
translated in math, and that reduce 

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. 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 computational reality for all the computational results to 
 manifest in the same universe.


 OK. But it does not need to be physical. In fact nobody can define 
 physical computation without using the arithmetical notion. Arithmetic 
 provides a simple realm containing all computations. The physical 
 appearance can be (and must be, by UDA) explained from it.

 1. There is a single fundamental computational reality which includes 
 myriads of individual computations?


 Yes, indeed. A tiny part of arithmetic (sigma_1 arithmetic) contains *all* 
 possible computations. It is a consequence of Church thesis, or of Turing 
 definition of computations.



 2. This fundamental computational reality includes the attribute of 
 becoming?


 In the first person view that we can attribute to relativ
 ...

-- 
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: 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, the UD*, or any  
sigma_1 complete reality, and this needs arithmetic (or anything  
Turing equivalent), and then by the UDA, the TOE ontology does not,  
and cannot, be more rich than that.

Then you say 
One of course needs a single computational reality for all the  
computational results to manifest in the same universe

I do not understand.

And you keep not answering the question can we survive with an  
artificial brain in your theory?


Bruno




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. 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 computational reality for all the  
computational results to manifest in the same universe.


OK. But it does not need to be physical. In fact nobody can define  
physical computation without using the arithmetical notion.  
Arithmetic provides a simple realm containing all computations. The  
physical appearance can be (and must be, by UDA) explained from it.


1. There is a single fundamental computational reality which  
includes myriads of individual computations?


Yes, indeed. A tiny part of arithmetic (sigma_1 arithmetic) contains  
*all* possible computations. It is a consequence of Church thesis,  
or of Turing definition of computations.




2. This fundamental computational reality includes the attribute of  
becoming?


In the first person view that we can attribute to relativ
...

--
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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 detail in a number of posts.

And I don't answer the question can we survive with an artificial brain in 
my theory because it is irrelevant sci fi fantasy with all sorts of 
unstated assumptions. My theory deals with reality, not with sci fi. 
However I've already stated the strict answer to the question as stated and 
with the normal theoretical (and totally impracticable) assumptions is 
'yes, of course', but so what? It has nothing to do with the core 
principles of computational reality... Why do you keep asking this question 
I've already answered?

Edgar



On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:01:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2014, at 14:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Bruno,

 The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell you 
 that before you get it?


 I did not say that. 
 But you mentioned a single computational reality. What do you mean?

 There is only one single computational reality, the UD*, or any sigma_1 
 complete reality, and this needs arithmetic (or anything Turing 
 equivalent), and then by the UDA, the TOE ontology does not, and cannot, be 
 more rich than that.
 Then you say 

 One of course needs a single computational reality for all the 
 computational results to manifest in the same universe

 I do not understand.

 And you keep not answering the question can we survive with an artificial 
 brain in your theory?

 Bruno



 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:

 span 
 style=border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:no

 ...

-- 
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: 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 actually ever telling us how) but it 
simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time 
flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully 
should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed

And you still keep repeating your misunderstanding of p-time, that it is 
somehow falsified by relativity. It isn't. It is entirely compatible with 
relativity, and in fact the whole notion of a present moment is a direct 
consequence of SR.

Edgar

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:08:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 24 January 2014 14:56, Stephen Paul King 
 step...@provensecure.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 Dear LizR,

   I don't know how I could explain it any better Sorry. :_(

 Then sadly it seems to be falling into Edgar-land. He can't grasp how 
 relativity makes his idea of p-time a non-starter, and you can't grasp how 
 physics operates in a block universe. IMHO you're both operating from the 
 basis that if you don't understand something, it can't be true, and 
 spending a lot of energy trying to solve problems that don't need to be 
 solved.

 Both relativity and block universes work fine, or at least they do as far 
 as anyone who makes use of them for calculations and predictions knows. So 
 perhaps the fault, my dear, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves... 



-- 
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: 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 not apply to mine.

 I've explained mine in detail in a number of posts.

 And I don't answer the question can we survive with an artificial brain
 in my theory because it is irrelevant sci fi fantasy with all sorts of
 unstated assumptions. My theory deals with reality, not with sci fi.


Have you other jokes like that in your pocket ?

I wonder when you'll stop posting, I hope it won't take as long as it took
for roger...


 However I've already stated the strict answer to the question as stated
 and with the normal theoretical (and totally impracticable) assumptions is
 'yes, of course', but so what? It has nothing to do with the core
 principles of computational reality... Why do you keep asking this question
 I've already answered?

 Edgar



 On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:01:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2014, at 14:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Bruno,

 The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell you
 that before you get it?


 I did not say that.
 But you mentioned a single computational reality. What do you mean?

 There is only one single computational reality, the UD*, or any sigma_1
 complete reality, and this needs arithmetic (or anything Turing
 equivalent), and then by the UDA, the TOE ontology does not, and cannot, be
 more rich than that.
 Then you say 

 One of course needs a single computational reality for all the
 computational results to manifest in the same universe

 I do not understand.

 And you keep not answering the question can we survive with an
 artificial brain in your theory?

 Bruno



 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:

 span style=border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);
 font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:no

 ...

  --
 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: 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 something fixed
 and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it
 simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time
 flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully
 should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed

 And you still keep repeating your misunderstanding of p-time, that it is
 somehow falsified by relativity. It isn't. It is entirely compatible with
 relativity, and in fact the whole notion of a present moment is a direct
 consequence of SR.


and blablabla... of course it is a direct consequence of SR... because when
we show you it's not... you're simply singing lalalalala and ignore it...
the truth is, the only real bullshit theory (or should I say) theories,
are yours.

Quentin



 Edgar

 On Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:08:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 24 January 2014 14:56, Stephen Paul King step...@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 how
 physics operates in a block universe. IMHO you're both operating from the
 basis that if you don't understand something, it can't be true, and
 spending a lot of energy trying to solve problems that don't need to be
 solved.

 Both relativity and block universes work fine, or at least they do as far
 as anyone who makes use of them for calculations and predictions knows. So
 perhaps the fault, my dear, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...

  --
 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: 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 UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:

 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 detail in a number of posts.

 And I don't answer the question can we survive with an artificial brain 
 in my theory because it is irrelevant sci fi fantasy with all sorts of 
 unstated assumptions. My theory deals with reality, not with sci fi. 


 Have you other jokes like that in your pocket ?

 I wonder when you'll stop posting, I hope it won't take as long as it took 
 for roger...
  

 However I've already stated the strict answer to the question as stated 
 and with the normal theoretical (and totally impracticable) assumptions is 
 'yes, of course', but so what? It has nothing to do with the core 
 principles of computational reality... Why do you keep asking this question 
 I've already answered?

 Edgar



 On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:01:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2014, at 14:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Bruno,

 The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell you 
 that before you get it?


 I did not say that. 
 But you mentioned a single computational reality. What do you mean?

 There is only one single computational reality, the UD*, or any sigma_1 
 complete reality, and this needs arithmetic (or

 ...

-- 
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: 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 figure...


 :-)


I'm not laughing, I find it very annoying to have someone like you
polluting a forum like this... when someone show you're wrong, you simply
ignore it, act like you know the truth and repeat lies ad nauseam...
please, go away.

Quentin



 Edgar




 On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:56:28 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2014/1/24 Edgar L. Owen edga...@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 not apply to mine.

 I've explained mine in detail in a number of posts.

 And I don't answer the question can we survive with an artificial brain
 in my theory because it is irrelevant sci fi fantasy with all sorts of
 unstated assumptions. My theory deals with reality, not with sci fi.


 Have you other jokes like that in your pocket ?

 I wonder when you'll stop posting, I hope it won't take as long as it
 took for roger...


 However I've already stated the strict answer to the question as stated
 and with the normal theoretical (and totally impracticable) assumptions is
 'yes, of course', but so what? It has nothing to do with the core
 principles of computational reality... Why do you keep asking this question
 I've already answered?

 Edgar



 On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:01:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2014, at 14:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Bruno,

 The computations are NOT PHYSICAL. How many times do I have to tell you
 that before you get it?


 I did not say that.
 But you mentioned a single computational reality. What do you mean?

 There is only one single computational reality, the UD*, or any sigma_1
 complete reality, and this needs arithmetic (or

 ...

  --
 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: 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 they have been so stupid?


 All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed
 and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it
 simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time
 flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully
 should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed


Apart from constant repetition of I'm right and you're wrong you make one
statement in here to support your views, namely the obvious observable
fact that time flows. What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it
flow through? Don't bother to reply because far more astute minds than
yours have worked out the answer - it doesn't, unless you postulate another
time through which it flows. But so far that is completely unnecessary to
explain the universe. (It isn't even necessary to explain your
computational reality idea, ironically enough.)


 And you still keep repeating your misunderstanding of p-time, that it is
 somehow falsified by relativity. It isn't. It is entirely compatible with
 relativity, and in fact the whole notion of a present moment is a direct
 consequence of SR.


Well of course I do, and will do so until you (or anyone) shows how it
could be otherwise, by for example showing how p-time can be mapped onto
the events that supposedly take place in it.

However you won't, because you can't, as your constant refusal to engage
with serious questions shows. This particular misunderstanding is related
to your idea that time somehow flows.

Anyway you just keep on and on with the same old nonsense, you say block
time is a BS theory which just goes to show the level of your intellect.
You can't actually show that, so you just repeat it over and over and hope
the BS will stick.

Well it has stuck, but not where you intended.

Luckily GMail allows users to make rules to automatically junk messages
from specified people. You have the honour of being the first (and I hope
the last) person I shall use it on.

-- 
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: 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 just wrong about that also?

As for your usual flames I know it must be terribly embarrassing to have 
the very person you've repeatedly labeled a 'troll' and a 'crackpot' to 
correct your understanding of both QM (not understanding that all particle 
interactions produce entanglements) AND GR (not understanding that space 
warps at the edge of galaxies as space expands and misunderstanding p. 718 
of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation) on the same day as I did in 
the morning!
:-)

Ah well, you can always block my messages and try to hide from the 
embarrassment as you've announced you are going to. We will see if you can 
really resist the temptation for further flames and personal attacks on me 
and now Stephen as well who was just very politely and objectively 
expressing a disbelief in block time when you maligned him?

Edgar

On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

 Liz,

 Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says block time is 
 a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which 
 Stephen has just presented to you. 


 Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could they have been so stupid? 


 All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed 
 and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it 
 simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time 
 flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully 
 should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed


 Apart from constant repetition of I'm right and you're wrong you make 
 one statement in here to support your views, namely the obvious observable 
 fact that time flows. What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it 
 flow through? Don't bother to reply because far more astute minds than 
 yours have worked out the answer - it doesn't, unless you postulate another 
 time through which it flows. But so far that is completely unnecessary to 
 explain the universe. (It isn't even necessary to explain your 
 computational reality idea, ironically enough.)


 And you still keep repeating your misunderstanding of p-time, that it is 
 somehow falsified by relativity. It isn't. It is entirely compatible with 
 relativity, and in fact the whole notion of a present moment is a direct 
 consequence of SR.


 div clas
 ...

-- 
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: 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 consider the argument that I wrote up about how we
must use a plurality of computational spaces and not a single
computational space -dimensional or otherwise, if we are going to argue
that computation generates the physical world. As to my argument against
block time, it, IMHO, boils down to an attempt to argue that our perception
of change is an illusion and offers no explanation for the persistence of
the illusion in the face of physical facts. This concept is not new, it is
thousand of years old, going all the way back to Parmenides- that can be
documented.
   I favor Hericlutus' vision that Becoming is ontologically fundamental
and that all things in Reality come in dual pairs. This gives us a way to
think of the ontological foundation of existence as a property neutral Void
- the one thing that Democritus got right. The Void is not to be considered
to be static and timeless, but as the complete collection of all possible
forms of becoming, each of which is a Process that has, in most cases,
products. (To use the languaging of Gordon
Paskhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask
)
 Out of this Void emerges atoms (totally disconnected topological
spaces) and logical structures (the Stone dual of the spaces) that have
arrows of evolution that point in opposite directions (as discussed
by Vaughan
Pratt in his proposed solution to the mind-body
problemhttp://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf).

This vision accounts for both the physical world and computation as
evolving out of Nothingness and eventually returning to Nothingness without
having to resort to 'tricks' to explain claims of illusions away.

  Currently I have to go through the papers by Donald Hoffman to see if his
model of conscious agents can be used as a mathematical model in for a
project that I am working on. I don't have any more time to post to the
list and reply to comments, as much as I would like to.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 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 just wrong about that also?

 As for your usual flames I know it must be terribly embarrassing to have
 the very person you've repeatedly labeled a 'troll' and a 'crackpot' to
 correct your understanding of both QM (not understanding that all particle
 interactions produce entanglements) AND GR (not understanding that space
 warps at the edge of galaxies as space expands and misunderstanding p. 718
 of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation) on the same day as I did in
 the morning!
 :-)

 Ah well, you can always block my messages and try to hide from the
 embarrassment as you've announced you are going to. We will see if you can
 really resist the temptation for further flames and personal attacks on me
 and now Stephen as well who was just very politely and objectively
 expressing a disbelief in block time when you maligned him?

 Edgar

 On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@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 they have been so stupid?


 All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed
 and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it
 simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time
 flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully
 should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed


 Apart from constant repetition of I'm right and you're wrong you make
 one statement in here to support your views, namely the obvious observable
 fact that time flows. What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it
 flow through? Don't bother to reply because far more astute minds than
 yours have worked out the answer - it doesn't, unless you postulate another
 time through which it flows. But so far that is completely unnecessary to
 explain the universe. (It isn't even necessary to explain your
 computational reality idea, ironically enough.)


 And you still keep repeating your misunderstanding of p-time, that it is
 somehow falsified by relativity. It isn't. It is entirely compatible with
 relativity, and in fact the whole notion of a present moment is a direct
 consequence of 

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 
has just
presented to you.


Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could they have been so stupid?


All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed 
and static
somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it simply can't. 
it simply
can't explain the obvious observable fact that time flows. It's not just a 
BS
theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully should have been laughed into
oblivion as soon as it was proposed


Apart from constant repetition of I'm right and you're wrong you make one statement in 
here to support your views, namely the obvious observable fact that time flows. What 
does that mean? How does it flow? What does it flow through?


Note that Edgar has never answered my question, how do you measure an interval 
of p-time?

Brent

--
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: 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
and time as used in special relativity, and Newton was quite explicit about
how he regarded space and time (as Euclidean dimensions). Plus he is
completely unwilling to learn. He's lost all credibility as far as I'm
concerned.


On 25 January 2014 15:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/24/2014 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:

 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 they have been so stupid?


  All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something
 fixed and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but
 it simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that
 time flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that
 rightfully should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was
 proposed


  Apart from constant repetition of I'm right and you're wrong you make
 one statement in here to support your views, namely the obvious observable
 fact that time flows. What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it
 flow through?


 Note that Edgar has never answered my question, how do you measure an
 interval of p-time?

 Brent

 --
 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: 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 as we simply assume there is a notion of becoming (your term 
which I can accept though I call it happening) IN the computational space 
we don't have that problem at all. Didn't we just agree to a notion of 
becoming at the fundamental level?

Second, in my view the computational space is fundamental. Things like 
Hilbert space are one of the many computational RESULTS of the fundamental 
computations. It's more analogous to myriads of running software programs 
interacting with each other as necessary than Hilbert space and certainly 
not the usual physical dimensional space. All these emerge OUT OF the 
computational level.

Third, I never claimed there is any actual PHYSICAL action at all. In my 
view everything is actually just the computational evolution of the 
information underlying the universe at the most fundamental level.

As I've repeatedly stated in my view a physical, material, dimensional 
world is an INTERPRETATION of the computational world in the internal 
mental model (simulation) of some observer. I spend the entire Part IV of 
my book explaining in great detail why this is correct. So I don't think 
your criticism addressing this applies.

I agree with everything in your next paragraph in quotes below: I thought 
that was understood. It's not an accident or illusion, it's an 
interpretation or model that makes reality easier to compute by biological 
minds as you suggest.
 
  The fact is that we do perceive a physical world and ourselves as in 
it. To regard this as some accident or illusion is to throw away the 
very thing that is necessary to communicate between minds (that are defined 
computationally). Physical actions act as a means to partition up universal 
computations into separable entities and allows for the existence of local 
computations that are not universal that can perform tasks that would 
otherwise require too many resources to implement.

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 computational reality for all the computational results to 
manifest in the same universe.

So what can we agree to out of this part of the discussion?

Can we agree

1. There is a single fundamental computational reality which includes 
myriads of individual computations?

2. This fundamental computational reality includes the attribute of 
becoming?

3. The current state of the universe is the current result of all these 
computations?

4. The 'physical world' in which we experience our existence is an internal 
mental interpretation (representation or simulation whichever term you 
prefer) of an observer's interaction with the fundamental computational 
reality? Remember even QM agrees there is no physical world in the sense of 
 the classical world of our mental model but actually consists only of 
colorless interacting wavefunctions, that in essence it's just active 
mathematical processes... So we should be able to agree the classical 
material physical dimensional world exists in our minds rather than 'out 
there' in the universe

Edgar







On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:09:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Edgar,

   Cool! We are making progress in understanding each other. :-) Let me get 
 into some details, where the devil is!


 On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Stephen,

 Yes, I understand not necessarily moving in space but just moving in the 
 sense of being actively computed. That's what I am talking about. Thought 
 that was understood...

 And I do NOT take perception as passive. It's an ACTIVE computation, a 
 computational interaction with the program of an organism with that of 
 sensory information input from the external world's computations. I thought 
 that was understood also..

 And there is no SEPARATE computational space (that needs to be proposed). 
 There is ONLY computational space. All actual reality is the current 
 computational results of that computational space. There is no actual 
 classical physical world. The notion of a physical material world is an 
 INTERPRETATION of the information results of the computational space in the 
 mind of some observer. It's the way the information is modeled or simulated 
 by a mind.


   Did you understand my argument that we can only use the notion of a 
 single computational space if we wish to consider a timeless version of 
 Computation? My argument follows the way that the Wheeler-Dewitt 
 

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 wish to consider a timeless version of
 Computation? That simply doesn't follow.


It has to do with how the computation must be constructed if it is to
compute all possible observer content of the universe. The very ability to
define a present moment vanishes as it is not possible to define a clock
that isn't static at each location or put the equivalent of time stamps
on the output of the computation..




 As long as we simply assume there is a notion of becoming (your term
 which I can accept though I call it happening) IN the computational space
 we don't have that problem at all. Didn't we just agree to a notion of
 becoming at the fundamental level?


The best way to understand my thinking is to read this wiki article on
Heraclitus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
  My notion of Becoming is almost identical to his. My philosophy is
essentially a modern version of his with a lot of ideas from mathematics,
computer science and physics that I have studied.




 Second, in my view the computational space is fundamental. Things like
 Hilbert space are one of the many computational RESULTS of the fundamental
 computations. It's more analogous to myriads of running software programs
 interacting with each other as necessary than Hilbert space and certainly
 not the usual physical dimensional space. All these emerge OUT OF the
 computational level.


Could you explain the properties of the computational level in more
detail?




 Third, I never claimed there is any actual PHYSICAL action at all. In my
 view everything is actually just the computational evolution of the
 information underlying the universe at the most fundamental level.


Is this computational evolution one that is eternal, without beginning or
end?




 As I've repeatedly stated in my view a physical, material, dimensional
 world is an INTERPRETATION of the computational world in the internal
 mental model (simulation) of some observer.


Each observer has its own interpretation of the computational world.
Would this correspond to its mind?



 I spend the entire Part IV of my book explaining in great detail why this
 is correct. So I don't think your criticism addressing this applies.


I can not read your book now. My stack of must read materials is already
too high.




 I agree with everything in your next paragraph in quotes below: I thought
 that was understood. It's not an accident or illusion, it's an
 interpretation or model that makes reality easier to compute by biological
 minds as you suggest.

   The fact is that we do perceive a physical world and ourselves as in
 it. To regard this as some accident or illusion is to throw away the
 very thing that is necessary to communicate between minds (that are defined
 computationally). Physical actions act as a means to partition up universal
 computations into separable entities and allows for the existence of local
 computations that are not universal that can perform tasks that would
 otherwise require too many resources to implement.

 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 computational reality for all the computational results to
 manifest in the same universe.


OK, cool! My thought is that your computational reality looks very much
like a Quantum realm where all possible wave functions live and that the
physical world we observe is, very crudely stated, a type of intersection
of finite wave functions. The physical world is literally a delusion that
we all share.




 So what can we agree to out of this part of the discussion?


OK


 Can we agree

 1. There is a single fundamental computational reality which includes
 myriads of individual computations?


OK.


 2. This fundamental computational reality includes the attribute of
 becoming?


Yes.


 3. The current state of the universe is the current result of all these
 computations?



Not quite. There is no such thing as the current state of the universe.
There is only what some observer has as its observations. There is not
universe out there that would match the classical vision of an objective
universe. Such is merely a fiction we all agree on at a computational
level. It is our reality: that which some collection of mutually
communicating observers have as incontrovertible.


 4. The 'physical world' in which we experience our existence is an
 internal mental interpretation (representation or simulation whichever term
 you prefer) of an observer's interaction with the fundamental computational
 reality?


Not just that. 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, well,
anything useful (except perhaps Cantor's set theory).

-- 
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: 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
constructorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#A_standard_construction,
or symbols systems that make reference to themselves, ... It is, IMHO, a
way of mathematically representing the Heraclitean notion of
Fluxhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/#Flu
.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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, well,
 anything useful (except perhaps Cantor's set theory).

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 the null set and
 adding layers of brackets, or by the von Neumann 
 constructorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#A_standard_construction,
 or symbols systems that make reference to themselves, ... It is, IMHO, a
 way of mathematically representing the Heraclitean notion of 
 Fluxhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/#Flu
 .

 I'd say an infinite tower of boxes is exactly opposite to the Heraclitean
notion of Flux! Also, the von Neumann constructor (and similar systems)
don't *start* with an infinite nesting. So all a bit confusing. Still ...
maybe you could explain what he's getting at better than he can?

-- 
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: 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), you should not have too much difficulty to conceive that the
sigma_1 number relations constitute a universal system, and thus emulate
all Turing machines and brains. Then AR does the rest (assuming comp
'course).

  We differ most in our interpretation of the word emulate. For me, an
emulation implies some form of physical activity that acts as the
energetic motivation of the functions that are isomorphic to the universal
system. My reasoning here is a
processhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/based
interpretation of the Stone
duality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_duality: physical systems are
to Stone spaces what logical systems are to Boolean algebras. The
isomorphism between a BA and a Stone space S(BA) need not be a strictly
bijection.
   Thus when you write: emulates a universal system, I parse this as
some physical system implements the isomorph of the logical universal
system.

   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).
Numbers can *represent* actions, but they are most definitely NOT actions;
there is no evolution associated with them, again, by definition.
   My definition of computation reflects this reasoning as well. It says
that the evolution of a physical system is dual to a computation of the set
of representations of that system.
   This also requires a weakening of the notion of computational
independence: A universal computation is independent of any particular
physical implementation, but it is not independent of the class of all
physical implementations.



On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:29, LizR wrote:

 On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

 Dear Bruno,

 I do not claim that UDA is flawed. I claim it is incomplete and based
 on a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one can reason as if
 the physical world does not exist and discuss ideas that imply the
 existence of Becoming and measures there of (time) all the while using
 axioms that forbid their existence. It is the sound of one hand clapping in
 a mind that cannot imagine air.


 I don't see why any of AR implies the existence of becoming.


 OK. See below.



 Nor do I understand how Bruno gets computations out indexically.



 I don't get the computation indexically, unless you mean the indices of
 the phi_i.
 Indexical was referring to the mathematics of self-reference used in AUDA.
 It is the one obeying G and G*, and whose variants gives the person points
 of view (including the physical one).

 That the computation are emulated through number relations in arithmetic
 is quite standard. It is already almost explicit in Gödel 1931, although
 nitpickers could say this only appears really officially in Hilbert and
 Bernays.

 It is technically easy, but long and tedious to do that in detail. When
 done, there can be some opposition coming from the fact that people confuse
 computations (the abstract notion), and their description in term of
 numbers.

 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), you should not have too much difficulty to conceive that the
 sigma_1 number relations constitute a universal system, and thus emulate
 all Turing machines and brains. Then AR does the rest (assuming comp
 'course).

 And then you have your explanation of becoming, up to one serious but
 fertile difficulty.
 Indeed, once you understand that all subjective experiences, which include
 the subjective feeling of becoming, are emulated in arithmetic, the
 illusion of becoming is explained.

 The problem is that by the FPI, we must still explain the statistical
 persistence of such feelings, and here UDA explains that such persistence
 can only come from the relative FPI, which can be translated in math, and
 that reduce physics to mathematics.

 It does not necessarily make the physical into a mathematical structure.
 It makes the whole coupling consciousness/physicalness into an arithmetical
 internal phenomenon.

 Hope this helped a bit,

 Bruno







 I suspect you don't, either, so you assume he uses becoming - if so we
 both need to know exactly what Bruno is arguing actually happens (I use the
 word under erasure!) before we can have an opinion on whether he's right or
 not.

 I have to ask, do you accept block universes? If not imho you're probably
 arguing from a false premise 

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 starts with
the Void.
   You are thinking of the idea almost exactly backwards. :-)


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:10 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 the null set and
 adding layers of brackets, or by the von Neumann 
 constructorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#A_standard_construction,
 or symbols systems that make reference to themselves, ... It is, IMHO, a
 way of mathematically representing the Heraclitean notion of 
 Fluxhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/#Flu
 .

 I'd say an infinite tower of boxes is exactly opposite to the Heraclitean
 notion of Flux! Also, the von Neumann constructor (and similar systems)
 don't *start* with an infinite nesting. So all a bit confusing. Still ...
 maybe you could explain what he's getting at better than he can?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 definition:

In physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics, *action* is an attribute
 of the dynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_%28physics%29 of
 a physical system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_system. It is a 
 mathematical
 functional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_%28mathematics%29which 
 takes the
 trajectory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory, also called *path*or
 *history*, of the system as its argument and has a real 
 numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_numberas its result. Generally, the 
 action takes different values for different
 paths.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29#cite_note-mcgraw1-1Action
  has the
 dimensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis of 
 [energy]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
 ·[time] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time, and its SI 
 unithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_unitis
 joule 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule-secondhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second.
 This is the same unit as that of angular 
 momentumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
 .


All the above can be calculated in a block universe (or, equivalently, for
an event that took place in the past). Hence something that is by
definition fixed and timeless (systems in a block universe) *can *indeed
be considered to have any property that is an actual
actionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
- specifically, they can have the property of action itself, as described!

-- 
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: 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 infinite nesting,
 one starts with the null set or, if we use the Laws of Form, it starts with
 the Void.
You are thinking of the idea almost exactly backwards. :-)


I blame my teacher, in this case Kauffman  Can you sum up what he (?) is
getting at so it's intelligible?

-- 
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: 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 stipulate the block universe for the sake of
the conversation. What we could see in the block universe, once we
associate with it with the Hamiltonians or Lagrangians of the world tubes,
is a *representation of action*. *It is not action itself*.
   A world or reality is not in my thinking a representation of something
that does not exist. We can define observers as being representable per
Bruno's definition, but that is half of what they are, not all of what they
are. *For every representation there must exist at least one physical
object and for every physical object there must exist at least one
representation*.
   There are two Categories in play, not one. The 'magic' is that we can
only see one or the other, that is the nature of the duality and, I
suspect, why Bruno can not seem to understand my proposal.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 definition:

 In physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics, *action* is an
 attribute of the 
 dynamicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_%28physics%29of a physical
 system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_system. It is a mathematical
 functional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_%28mathematics%29which 
 takes the
 trajectory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory, also called *path*or
 *history*, of the system as its argument and has a real 
 numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_numberas its result. Generally, 
 the action takes different values for different
 paths.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29#cite_note-mcgraw1-1Action
  has the
 dimensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis of
 [energy] 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy·[time]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time,
 and its SI unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_unit is 
 joulehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
 -second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second. This is the same unit as
 that of angular momentum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum.


 All the above can be calculated in a block universe (or, equivalently, for
 an event that took place in the past). Hence something that is by
 definition fixed and timeless (systems in a block universe) *can *indeed
 be considered to have any property that is an actual 
 actionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29
 - specifically, they can have the property of action itself, as described!

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
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: 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, 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 starts with
 the Void.
You are thinking of the idea almost exactly backwards. :-)


 I blame my teacher, in this case Kauffman  Can you sum up what he (?) is
 getting at so it's intelligible?


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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 so that they are all
 simultaneously definite.


If this is a problem (which is far from certain) it's one of classical
physics vs quantum theory. It doesn't show block universes are impossible,
it shows that classical physics is impossible. (The resolution is almost
certainly a block multiverse.)


But let us ignore that and stipulate the block universe for the sake of
 the conversation. What we could see in the block universe, once we
 associate with it with the Hamiltonians or Lagrangians of the world tubes,
 is a *representation of action*. *It is not action itself*.


No, it really is action. The past is a block universe (unless you know some
way to change it). You can associate a Hamiltonian with something in the
past (since physics worked in the past). So you can do all the above with
block universes.


A world or reality is not in my thinking a representation of
 something that does not exist. We can define observers as being
 representable per Bruno's definition, but that is half of what they are,
 not all of what they are. *For every representation there must exist at
 least one physical object and for every physical object there must exist at
 least one representation*.


So no universe without representation!, eh? (So no universe before beings
able to make representations?)

-- 
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: 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 how
physics operates in a block universe. IMHO you're both operating from the
basis that if you don't understand something, it can't be true, and
spending a lot of energy trying to solve problems that don't need to be
solved.

Both relativity and block universes work fine, or at least they do as far
as anyone who makes use of them for calculations and predictions knows. So
perhaps the fault, my dear, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...

-- 
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: 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 states; a
 block universe must have all of its observables as mutually commuting so
 that they are all simultaneously definite.


 If this is a problem (which is far from certain) it's one of classical
 physics vs quantum theory. It doesn't show block universes are impossible,
 it shows that classical physics is impossible. (The resolution is almost
 certainly a block multiverse.)


Umm, one more time: A block universe requires that it be a block, a fixed
4-dimensional object. As such all properties associated with the points
making up that hypercube must be simultaneously defined. The general
non-commutability of observables (energy, spin direction, position,
duration, etc.) of QM disallows this requirement. Thus QM prohibits the
existence of a block universe.
  I don't comprehend what a block multiverse could be.





But let us ignore that and stipulate the block universe for the sake
 of the conversation. What we could see in the block universe, once we
 associate with it with the Hamiltonians or Lagrangians of the world tubes,
 is a *representation of action*. *It is not action itself*.


 No, it really is action. The past is a block universe (unless you know
 some way to change it). You can associate a Hamiltonian with something in
 the past (since physics worked in the past). So you can do all the above
 with block universes.


   The mathematical representation of the action *is* the action? Maybe
you are thinking in a different way or interpreting the definition given in
the wiki article in a different way...





A world or reality is not in my thinking a representation of
 something that does not exist. We can define observers as being
 representable per Bruno's definition, but that is half of what they are,
 not all of what they are. *For every representation there must exist at
 least one physical object and for every physical object there must exist at
 least one representation*.


 So no universe without representation!, eh? (So no universe before
 beings able to make representations?)


No, a physical system, say the universe comes into being with its
representation (at least its self-representation), one cannot exist without
the other. This is a form of panpsychism... maybe... I am not married to
this idea without the possibility of a divorce. It is weird, I admit, I am
just trying to see if it works.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
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: 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.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: 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 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.


 If this is a problem (which is far from certain) it's one of classical
 physics vs quantum theory. It doesn't show block universes are impossible,
 it shows that classical physics is impossible. (The resolution is almost
 certainly a block multiverse.)


 Umm, one more time: A block universe requires that it be a block, a fixed
 4-dimensional object. As such all properties associated with the points
 making up that hypercube must be simultaneously defined. The general
 non-commutability of observables (energy, spin direction, position,
 duration, etc.) of QM disallows this requirement. Thus QM prohibits the
 existence of a block universe.


Your use of simultaneously doesn't make sense. These properties are
*not*simultaneously defined (simultaneity in a block universe is
defined as a
particular hyperplane, and is relative to an observer).


   I don't comprehend what a block multiverse could be.


A multiverse which evolves according to deterministic laws. QM under the
Everett interpretation describes a block multiverse.



But let us ignore that and stipulate the block universe for the sake
 of the conversation. What we could see in the block universe, once we
 associate with it with the Hamiltonians or Lagrangians of the world tubes,
 is a *representation of action*. *It is not action itself*.


 No, it really is action. The past is a block universe (unless you know
 some way to change it). You can associate a Hamiltonian with something in
 the past (since physics worked in the past). So you can do all the above
 with block universes.


   The mathematical representation of the action *is* the action? Maybe you
 are thinking in a different way or interpreting the definition given in the
 wiki article in a different way...


OK, I may have not put that too clearly. Let's just concentrate on the
past. The past is by definition a block universe (it's unchanging, with
everything fixed in place in a 4D continuum.) Actions took place in the
past, hence actions can take place in a block universe.



A world or reality is not in my thinking a representation of
 something that does not exist. We can define observers as being
 representable per Bruno's definition, but that is half of what they are,
 not all of what they are. *For every representation there must exist at
 least one physical object and for every physical object there must exist at
 least one representation*.


 So no universe without representation!, eh? (So no universe before
 beings able to make representations?)


 No, a physical system, say the universe comes into being with its
 representation (at least its self-representation), one cannot exist without
 the other. This is a form of panpsychism... maybe... I am not married to
 this idea without the possibility of a divorce. It is weird, I admit, I am
 just trying to see if it works.


OK, I'll leave that aside for now.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 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 

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 other people have this problem.

 I too have this problem. I have a huge to-read list, which I often fail to
even make inroads into - both David Deutsch's BoI and The Proteus
Operation fell by the wayside after I'd got about half way through (the
latter, admittedly, because it was a terrible e-text I'd found online).

However I would still place re-reading ToN above reading some books that
have been suggested on this forum, because I *know* it has a lot of sense
in it (even if I may sometimes disagree with the author on some minor point
:)

-- 
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: 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 
 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 so
 that they are all simultaneously definite.


 If this is a problem (which is far from certain) it's one of classical
 physics vs quantum theory. It doesn't show block universes are impossible,
 it shows that classical physics is impossible. (The resolution is almost
 certainly a block multiverse.)


 Umm, one more time: A block universe requires that it be a block, a fixed
 4-dimensional object. As such all properties associated with the points
 making up that hypercube must be simultaneously defined. The general
 non-commutability of observables (energy, spin direction, position,
 duration, etc.) of QM disallows this requirement. Thus QM prohibits the
 existence of a block universe.


 Your use of simultaneously doesn't make sense. These properties are
 *not* simultaneously defined (simultaneity in a block universe is defined
 as a particular hyperplane, and is relative to an observer).



Is the block universe a 4-dimensional object or not? If it is and it obeys
the rules of topology, etc. All of what it is, it is. Even if we stipulate
the definition of simultineity as a particular hyperplane relative to some
wordtube observer, all of the positions and the momenta and the spin
angles and the ... have to have some particular value or else it, the block
universe, is not a 4-d object. We cannot have the tangent spaces popping
in and out as the hyperplane is swung around... or can we?



   I don't comprehend what a block multiverse could be.


 A multiverse which evolves according to deterministic laws. QM under the
 Everett interpretation describes a block multiverse.


It is infinitely dimensional, as each universe is orthogonal to all
others. I understand what a Hilbert space is



But let us ignore that and stipulate the block universe for the sake
 of the conversation. What we could see in the block universe, once we
 associate with it with the Hamiltonians or Lagrangians of the world tubes,
 is a *representation of action*. *It is not action itself*.


 No, it really is action. The past is a block universe (unless you know
 some way to change it). You can associate a Hamiltonian with something in
 the past (since physics worked in the past). So you can do all the above
 with block universes.


   The mathematical representation of the action *is* the action? Maybe
 you are thinking in a different way or interpreting the definition given in
 the wiki article in a different way...


 OK, I may have not put that too clearly. Let's just concentrate on the
 past. The past is by definition a block universe (it's unchanging, with
 everything fixed in place in a 4D continuum.) Actions took place in the
 past, hence actions can take place in a block universe.


No, I don't buy that idea any more. There is no reason to believe that
there is a universe outthere that matches 1 to 1 to what we perceive as
Humans. We could all agree on what we believe to be out there just
because our brains tend to generate similar simulations of what they
believe to be out there.
  If we take QM seriously, we are forced to accept this. There is no such
thing as a classical world out there. It is a mass delusion.





A world or reality is not in my thinking a representation of
 something that does not exist. We can define observers as being
 representable per Bruno's definition, but that is half of what they are,
 not all of what they are. *For every representation there must exist
 at least one physical object and for every physical object there must exist
 at least one representation*.


 So no universe without representation!, eh? (So no universe before
 beings able to make representations?)


  No, a physical system, say the universe comes into being with its
 representation (at least its self-representation), one cannot exist without
 the other. This is a form of panpsychism... maybe... I am not married to
 this idea without the possibility of a divorce. It is weird, I admit, I am
 just trying to see if it works.


 OK, I'll leave that aside for now.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this 

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 PGC had a dig at me for giving a big fat TL;DR!
  I'm glad other people have this problem.
 
  I too have this problem. I have a huge to-read list, which I often fail to
 even make inroads into - both David Deutsch's BoI and The Proteus
 Operation fell by the wayside after I'd got about half way through (the
 latter, admittedly, because it was a terrible e-text I'd found online).
 
 However I would still place re-reading ToN above reading some books that
 have been suggested on this forum, because I *know* it has a lot of sense
 in it (even if I may sometimes disagree with the author on some minor point
 :)
 

Aw, shucks!

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: 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 Argument,  
which presuppose only that a brain is a machine at some relevant  
level, entails that there is no motion, only dream of motion. The  
physical reality emerges from the coherence, or co-consistence of  
infinities of dream.




Just requoting some abstract mathematical proof won't suffice unless  
you can prove it actually applies.


Read the UDA before, if only to give me one light on your theory.




If there is really a way to get motion from stasis


Like if anyone was pretending that ... (rhetorical trick again).



you should be able to simply state the core of the argument in plain  
English.


That's the UDA.



There simply is no way to get motion from non-motion, either in your  
theory or in block timeYou can look at it from any perspective  
you want to but unless something moves nothing moves...


Indeed nothing moves at the ontological level. Things move only from  
the 'dreamer's mental perspective.





Of course you can use the same 'cop out' that block time does when  
it claims that an observer in every static frame of block time  
perceives a sequence of events, but that doesn't work to move  
anything.


Indeed? So you assume primitive moving, and thus a primitive time, and  
thus UDA shows that you are implicitly using the assumption that your  
p-time is not Turing emulable.
Indeed, if we recompute Julius Caesar' brain state, with comp, he will  
live Antic-time now, which might directly show that your notion of p- 
time is inconsistent with comp. This is coherent with your absence of  
definition of your computational space.




It's still just a sequence of cartoon frames which are obviously  
completely static. A static motionless observer sees them as a  
motionless sequence. Only an ACTIVELY MOVING reader of the cartoon  
can provide the apparent sequence of the cartoon frames that makes  
them meaningful. But of course actually both observer and universe  
are actively moving as they are continually being recomputed in the  
present moment of p-time


If the sequence seems to move it's only because that cartoon reader  
is already moving himself. So without a moving observer rather than  
a static 1p observer, to use your terminology, there can be no  
motion. Unless the 1p observer is himself alive and moving there can  
be no motion in his perspective. There is simply no way around that.


You reify reality. And this without saying. That's unconvincing  
pseudo-philosophy.


Just answer the question: can we survive with an artificial brain in  
your theory?


Bruno





Edgar

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:27:59 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jan 2014, at 17:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Bruno,

You continue to avoid the actual question. How does a static reality  
of all true arithmetic in Platonia actually result in change and the  
flow of time? You just claim everyone knows it.


Where. I just said (see below) that everybody knows it is never an  
argument. You misread me. On the contrary I said that I can explain  
it, but then it is long. Then, I point on the literature, and  
mention that the fact that arithmetic is Turing complete is known by  
experts.


Do you agree that arithmetic emulates all computations? I guess not.



Until you can give a convincing answer to that your theory can't be  
taken seriously.


By who? I have never have any problem with that. On the contrary,  
most physicists already believe that the theory of relativity go in  
that direction (even more so in Gödel's solution of Einstein's GR  
equation, with looping time.


I can give you an answer, except I am not sure you will study it. I  
will explain it to you when you answer the questions I asked about  
your theory. What does it assume, and how do you use it to prevent  
the UD Argument to proceed?





Just claiming that different observers have different perspectives  
on that reality doesn't make those perspectives active, they would  
still be static.


Seen from the big picture (arithmetical truth) you are right. Seen  
from the perspective of the internal creatures, you are wrong, at  
least in the sense, that those creatures have all reason to infer  
time and space, etc. They will talk about that like you and me.


Do you think that a machine can distinguish being a living person  
inhabiting on Earth, and being a living person on Earth emulated  
on some computer,  or in arithmetic.



And of course block time has the exact same problem

of course is a symptom of lack of argument.

You are just looking at the 3p picture, and not at the 1p views of  
the entities in that 3p reality. You could as well say that a brain  
has no relation with consciousness, as there 

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 I understand what that means: There is a  
diophantine equation such that you can parse a solution set of the  
equation into an input and a result such that the set of all such  
solutions sets correspond to all possible functions (in  
arithmetice).  Right?


Er... Well, I am not sure I can parse this :)

Let me restate the point a bit more precisely.

Let {phi_i, w_i} be an enumeration of the partial computable phi_i  
with their respective domain w_i. A partial computable function with  
w_i = N is called total. OK.


Now phi_i(x) = y can be translated into arithmetic (using for example  
the Kleene predicate). In fact it can be put in the form of x, y  
belongs to some w_i.


More simply,  the set of finite computations (the set of the initial  
segment of UD*, for example) is a recursively enumerable (RE) set, and  
thus is a w_i itself (cf: the w_i enumerates also the RE sets, not  
just the dom(phi_i)). Let us call it w_du


So I can translate x is a computation by x belongs to w_du.

But now, I can use the Matiyasevitch-Jones Universal diophantine  
relation.

(the unknowns range on the non negative integers (= 0 included)
There are 31 unknowns: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P,  
Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph,

and two parameters:  du itself and x.

So we can translate x is in w_du, i.e. x is a finite computation,  by

du = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y   (that's just coding)

ELG^2 + Al = (B - xY)Q^2

Qu = B^(5^60)

La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5

Th +  2Z = B^5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q^16

R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + xB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +  
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)

 + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)

P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2

(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2

4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1

F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1

(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1

So all solutions of this will give the x which are computations.

Hope this helped a bit,

Bruno






Brent

--
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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 block time can be, that  
there is no way to get movement out of it?


3. Do you agree that there must be some fundamental notion of  
movement (not movement in space, but in the sense of things  
happening) at the fundamental level?


4. Do you agree that implies some notion of time flowing?

5. Do you agree that reality is fundamentally computational? That in  
some sense or other the universe is the result of a computational  
process? The advantages are that this immediately explains the  
unreasonable effectiveness of math and solves the problem of how  
there can be laws of nature that somehow mysteriously control an  
assumed physical universe from some nether realm outside that  
universe (a problem Penrose grapples with unsuccessfully in his  
'Road to Reality'). Assuming a computational reality immediate  
incorporates the laws of nature as an actual part of that reality  
that actively compute it.


Let's stop here for now and see if we can agree on these 5 to begin  
with. And feel free to suggest some points of your own if you like...


Best,
Edgar



On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:34:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,

Yes, I understand not necessarily moving in space but just moving in  
the sense of being actively computed. That's what I am talking  
about. Thought that was understood...


And I do NOT take perception as passive. It's an ACTIVE computation,  
a computational interaction with the program of an organism with  
that of sensory information input from the external world's  
computations. I thought that was understood also..


And there is no SEPARATE computational space (that needs to be  
proposed). There is ONLY computational space. All actual reality is  
the current computational results of that computational space. There  
is no actual classical physical world. The notion of a physical  
material world is an INTERPRETATION of the information results of  
the computational space in the mind of some observer. It's the way  
the information is modeled or simulated by a mind.


Edgar



On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:05:38 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

Dear Edgar,


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:

Stephen,

It's an error to assume that perception has anything to do with  
things moving.


No, No! Not moving in a space- changing position coordinates, but  
some form of motion. For example, the spin of an electron is a form  
of motion, but it is not moving in the usual sense.



The current information state of the entire universe is continually  
being computed whether it's being perceived by anyone or not.  
Perception has nothing to do with it except apparently in the  
erroneous block time and UD theories which seem to claim that  
without things being perceived there is no motion, and that  
therefore there is no 'actual' motion which is anthropomorphic  
nonsense


If the computation is the perception? My beef with your thinking is  
that you take perception as a passive relation and not an action.



bl
...

--
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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 in the idea that Numbers can serve as a  
fundamental ground for Mind as a Platonic Form. It is the timeless  
spacial case.


By timeless special case it seems like you are implying the UDA is  
not an ACTUAL case describing a reality that we agree necessarily  
must move. So it seems like you are saying that though the UDA might  
somehow shed some light on reality it is not actually describing  
reality as it actually is. Is that correct?


Another problem with the UDA is I see no way a Platonia consisting  
of pure arithmetic can possible know how to actually compute what is  
actually occurring in the universe. How does pure static arithmetic  
truth know anything about what is actually happening where and how  
to compute which particles are interacting with which particles in  
what ways? I see no way that works at all.


Can we agree on something like Bruno's UDA is not an applicable  
description of a reality we agree actually moves, that actually  
includes the notion of 'becoming'?


Second point in this post is I AGREE with you that it is a mistake  
to assume that there is only a single computation going on. for a  
number of reasons. I've never claimed that. Sorry if that wasn't  
clear before.


I think the most reasonable model is a single computational REALITY  
(not a single computation) that contains myriads of computations  
each computing the current state of reality in computational  
interaction with its information environment (environment in a  
logical sense, not a dimensional or spatial sense).


This model avoids your concurrency problem, and a single  
computational reality allows computational continuity and  
consistency across the entire computational universe (again a  
logical, not physical dimensional spatial universe).


Can we agree on something like There is a single computational  
reality


Yes. A tiny part of arithmetic contains that, with the standard  
definition of computation, and Church thesis.




which includes myriads of ongoing computations which together  
continually compute the current state of the universe?


No. It only computes infinitely often all dreams, and the FPI (the  
First Person Indeterminacy on all my states in arithmetic) generates  
the persistent illusion of a physical multiverse.


Bruno





Edgar



On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:17:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

Dear Edgar,


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
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.

good!



2. Do you agree that Bruno's USA can also be discounted for the same  
reason block time can be, that there is no way to get movement out  
of it?



No, the UDA serves a good purpose to show that there is some  
ontological merit in the idea that Numbers can serve as a  
fundamental ground for Mind as a Platonic Form. It is the timeless  
spacial case.


3. Do you agree that there must be some fundamental notion of  
movement (not movement in space, but in the sense of things  
happening) at the fundamental level?


Yes, I denote this as Becoming is Fundamental.



4. Do you agree that implies some notion of time flowing?

The imposition of finite measures onto the Becoming is the creation  
of a clock. Clocks are strictly local entities. It has been  
repeatedly proven that a single clock cannot order all possible  
events of space-time. Thus a singular Present Moment is an  
oxymoron, a self-contradicting idea.




5. Do you agree that reality is fundamentally computational?

div
...

--
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://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 of the known math ideas still work, and those
 that become known as discovered. The key is that they do not exist as
 independent entities that are some how separable from the observer.


Well, there you have an assumption right there! (Did I mention Pythagoras?
A million schoolchildren know that his theorem is separable from the
observer because they had to be taught it.)


 Representations require presentations, they must be rendered by a physical
 process to be perceived, understood, known, described, etc.


I this is considered in some way significant, I assume there is some
confusion between the representation with the thing being represented.


Knowledge is not considered to be some thing that is projected into our
 minds by some mysterious process (see the allegory of the Cave).


This sounds like a straw man. Who has claimed such a thing? (apart from the
afoirementioned schoolchildren, who would, I am sure, think knowledge was
indeed being projected into their minds by a mysterious process !)

I'm afraid I am generally suspicious of people whose main aim is to show
that some other (often imaginary) view is wrong, rather than to attempt to
demonstrate why their view is likely to be correct.


 It is the action of the brain to implement a mind that allows knowledge to
 come into being.


So we assume, certainly. That doesn't stop us being able to hypothesise
that there are things out there, though, and arguably with a certain
degree of success.


   A related way of thinking is found here in a paper by Zurek on
 decoherence:


I'll have a look at that, but I don't have time for reading endless papers
so a precis is always appreciated!


 http://cds.cern.ch/record/640029/files/0308163.pdf

 This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a
 Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) 
 fitness
 of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of
 the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment-induced
 superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create o
 spring { copies of the information describing the state of the system in
 that environment. I show that this ability to `survive and procreate' is 
 central
 to effective classicality of quantum states. Environment retains its
 decohering role, but it also becomes a communication channel through
 which the state of the system is found out by the observers. In this
 sense, indirect acquisition of the information about
 the system from its environment allows quantum theory to come close to
 what happens in
 the classical physics: The information about a classical system can be
 dissociated from
 its state. (In the case of an isolated quantum system this is impossible {
 what is known
 about it is inseparably tied to the state it is in.)

 Sounds like he's saying that we cause the world to decohere in a manner
that enables us to further our survival. Assuming that's possible, I
imagine it's quite likely. But anyway I'll have a look at the paper.

-- 
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: 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 from a pdf. Can you
 open it in the Chrome browser?

In this ontology, all of the known math ideas still work, and those
 that become known as discovered. The key is that they do not exist as
 independent entities that are some how separable from the observer.


 Well, there you have an assumption right there! (Did I mention Pythagoras?
 A million schoolchildren know that his theorem is separable from the
 observer because they had to be taught it.)


Yes, it is an assumption. Are those schoolchildren observers? Do they
comprehend in some small way what a^2+b^2=c^2 represents? The point is
that a representation of a thing is not the thing unless it IS the thing.
Is a number merely a pattern of chalk on the blackboard? What about a
different pattern of dots on a piece of paper, could it represent the same
referent?
   Separability is a tricky and subtle concept...





 Representations require presentations, they must be rendered by a
 physical process to be perceived, understood, known, described, etc.


 I this is considered in some way significant, I assume there is some
 confusion between the representation with the thing being represented.


What is the relation between the two? My proposition is that there is a
relation between the category of Representations and the category of things
being represented (or objects). This relation is an isomorphism but not
always bijective.



 Knowledge is not considered to be some thing that is projected into
 our minds by some mysterious process (see the allegory of the Cave).


 This sounds like a straw man. Who has claimed such a thing? (apart from
 the afoirementioned schoolchildren, who would, I am sure, think knowledge
 was indeed being projected into their minds by a mysterious process !)


Do you have a theory of knowledge that you use? Would this one be OK?
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm

Russell does not really answer the question... I am trying to wade through
the ambiguity and point out that what ever the means that knowledge comes
to pass there is both a physical process and a logical (mental?) process
and these are not one and the same process.


 I'm afraid I am generally suspicious of people whose main aim is to show
 that some other (often imaginary) view is wrong, rather than to attempt to
 demonstrate why their view is likely to be correct.


I agree. I am trying exactly not to do that...



 It is the action of the brain to implement a mind that allows knowledge
 to come into being.


 So we assume, certainly. That doesn't stop us being able to hypothesise
 that there are things out there, though, and arguably with a certain
 degree of success.


   A related way of thinking is found here in a paper by Zurek on
 decoherence:


 I'll have a look at that, but I don't have time for reading endless papers
 so a precis is always appreciated!


 http://cds.cern.ch/record/640029/files/0308163.pdf


My takeaway of the paper is that it argues for a Wheelerian
participatory universe concept. A plurality of observers and the
interactions amongst them constrain the content of observation. I see this
as a defining the process that creates realities; realities are not defined
by a priori fiat.





 This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a
 Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) 
 fitness
 of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of
 the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment-induced
 superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create
 o spring { copies of the information describing the state of the system
 in that environment. I show that this ability to `survive and procreate' is 
 central
 to effective classicality of quantum states. Environment retains its
 decohering role, but it also becomes a communication channel through
 which the state of the system is found out by the observers. In this
 sense, indirect acquisition of the information about
 the system from its environment allows quantum theory to come close to
 what happens in
 the classical physics: The information about a classical system can be
 dissociated from
 its state. (In the case of an isolated quantum system this is impossible
 { what is known
 about it is inseparably tied to the state it is in.)

 Sounds like he's saying that we cause the world to decohere in a manner
 that enables us to further our survival. Assuming that's possible, I
 imagine it's quite likely. But anyway I'll have a look at the paper.



Its a great article!


-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

-- 
You received this message because you are 

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. 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 of the known math ideas still work, and those
 that become known as discovered. The key is that they do not exist as
 independent entities that are some how separable from the observer.


 Well, there you have an assumption right there! (Did I mention
 Pythagoras? A million schoolchildren know that his theorem is separable
 from the observer because they had to be taught it.)


 Yes, it is an assumption. Are those schoolchildren observers? Do they
 comprehend in some small way what a^2+b^2=c^2 represents? The point is that
 a representation of a thing is not the thing unless it IS the thing. Is a
 number merely a pattern of chalk on the blackboard? What about a different
 pattern of dots on a piece of paper, could it represent the same referent?


Yes, it could.


Separability is a tricky and subtle concept...


Not from that example, that seems crystal clear! :-)



 Representations require presentations, they must be rendered by a
 physical process to be perceived, understood, known, described, etc.


 I this is considered in some way significant, I assume there is some
 confusion between the representation with the thing being represented.


 What is the relation between the two? My proposition is that there is a
 relation between the category of Representations and the category of things
 being represented (or objects). This relation is an isomorphism but not
 always bijective.



 Knowledge is not considered to be some thing that is projected into
 our minds by some mysterious process (see the allegory of the Cave).


 This sounds like a straw man. Who has claimed such a thing? (apart from
 the afoirementioned schoolchildren, who would, I am sure, think knowledge
 was indeed being projected into their minds by a mysterious process !)


 Do you have a theory of knowledge that you use? Would this one be OK?
 http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm

 Russell does not really answer the question... I am trying to wade through
 the ambiguity and point out that what ever the means that knowledge comes
 to pass there is both a physical process and a logical (mental?) process
 and these are not one and the same process.


I would say the physical process instantiates the logical one.


 I'm afraid I am generally suspicious of people whose main aim is to show
 that some other (often imaginary) view is wrong, rather than to attempt to
 demonstrate why their view is likely to be correct.


 I agree. I am trying exactly not to do that...


Good. We've had an example of that on this very forum recently, so I may be
a bit predisposed to react against such... (or maybe doing the same thing
myself, in a meta sort of way)



 It is the action of the brain to implement a mind that allows knowledge
 to come into being.


 So we assume, certainly. That doesn't stop us being able to hypothesise
 that there are things out there, though, and arguably with a certain
 degree of success.


   A related way of thinking is found here in a paper by Zurek on
 decoherence:


 I'll have a look at that, but I don't have time for reading endless
 papers so a precis is always appreciated!


 http://cds.cern.ch/record/640029/files/0308163.pdf


 My takeaway of the paper is that it argues for a Wheelerian
 participatory universe concept. A plurality of observers and the
 interactions amongst them constrain the content of observation. I see this
 as a defining the process that creates realities; realities are not defined
 by a priori fiat.


Well this is certainly *possible*. I mean, no logical contradiction springs
to mind. But one needs (as with comp) to start with a theory of what an
observer is, I imagine...

-- 
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: 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 
 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 of the known math ideas still work, and those
 that become known as discovered. The key is that they do not exist as
 independent entities that are some how separable from the observer.


 Well, there you have an assumption right there! (Did I mention
 Pythagoras? A million schoolchildren know that his theorem is separable
 from the observer because they had to be taught it.)


 Yes, it is an assumption. Are those schoolchildren observers? Do they
 comprehend in some small way what a^2+b^2=c^2 represents? The point is that
 a representation of a thing is not the thing unless it IS the thing. Is a
 number merely a pattern of chalk on the blackboard? What about a different
 pattern of dots on a piece of paper, could it represent the same referent?


 Yes, it could.


 Separability is a tricky and subtle concept...


 Not from that example, that seems crystal clear! :-)
 I am distinguishing the physical process and the representations; there
 is not a one-to-one and onto map between the two.



 Representations require presentations, they must be rendered by a
 physical process to be perceived, understood, known, described, etc.


 I this is considered in some way significant, I assume there is some
 confusion between the representation with the thing being represented.


 What is the relation between the two? My proposition is that there is a
 relation between the category of Representations and the category of things
 being represented (or objects). This relation is an isomorphism but not
 always bijective.



 Knowledge is not considered to be some thing that is projected
 into our minds by some mysterious process (see the allegory of the Cave).


 This sounds like a straw man. Who has claimed such a thing? (apart from
 the afoirementioned schoolchildren, who would, I am sure, think knowledge
 was indeed being projected into their minds by a mysterious process !)


 Do you have a theory of knowledge that you use? Would this one be OK?
 http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm

 Russell does not really answer the question... I am trying to wade
 through the ambiguity and point out that what ever the means that knowledge
 comes to pass there is both a physical process and a logical (mental?)
 process and these are not one and the same process.


 I would say the physical process instantiates the logical one.


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'm afraid I am generally suspicious of people whose main aim is to show
 that some other (often imaginary) view is wrong, rather than to attempt to
 demonstrate why their view is likely to be correct.


 I agree. I am trying exactly not to do that...


 Good. We've had an example of that on this very forum recently, so I may
 be a bit predisposed to react against such... (or maybe doing the same
 thing myself, in a meta sort of way)


:-)



 It is the action of the brain to implement a mind that allows knowledge
 to come into being.


 So we assume, certainly. That doesn't stop us being able to hypothesise
 that there are things out there, though, and arguably with a certain
 degree of success.


   A related way of thinking is found here in a paper by Zurek on
 decoherence:


 I'll have a look at that, but I don't have time for reading endless
 papers so a precis is always appreciated!


 http://cds.cern.ch/record/640029/files/0308163.pdf


 My takeaway of the paper is that it argues for a Wheelerian
 participatory universe concept. A plurality of observers and the
 interactions amongst them constrain the content of observation. I see this
 as a defining the process that creates realities; realities are not defined
 by a priori fiat.


 Well this is certainly *possible*. I mean, no logical contradiction
 springs to mind. But one needs (as with comp) to start with a theory of
 what an observer is, I imagine...


I really like Donald Hoffman's Interface theory's agent as the observer
as an adjunct to Bruno's definition! http://youtu.be/dqDP34a-epI



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 

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 means. The obvious inference from the term closed
loop is that there is some sort of feed-forward from the abstract entity
that is, say, the number 2 to the physical representation of it. So the
abstract entity somehow created the physical representation. And then feed
back to the abstract from the physical... (Isn't that a bit like saying
that me typing I just saw a cat created the cat?)

-- 
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: 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 process the data...


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 means. The obvious inference from the term closed
 loop is that there is some sort of feed-forward from the abstract entity
 that is, say, the number 2 to the physical representation of it. So the
 abstract entity somehow created the physical representation. And then feed
 back to the abstract from the physical... (Isn't that a bit like saying
 that me typing I just saw a cat created the cat?)

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: 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, that the transformation is
 not instantaneous. it takes time for the system to process the data...


System?
Process?
Are we back in a computational reality?

-- 
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: 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 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 process the data...


 System?
 Process?
 Are we back in a computational reality?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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.


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >