Re: Tegmark's new book
I've just finished reading that review. I didn't find the arguments as convincing as I hoped I might, especially since I'm sure I've already read and liked a book by Butterfield (on time I think?) so I was looking forward to some thought-provoking arguments and maybe something that would make the 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
*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
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
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
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.
Tegmark's new book
Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps has the most members in it. For another try I have read the following: arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other] Title: The Mathematical Universe Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT) arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other] Title: Many lives in many 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.
Re: Tegmark's new book
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Tegmark's new book
Has there been any consensus as to the value or worth in buying this book? If not so there is a numerical GR book next in the queue. Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2014/1/24 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
2014/1/24 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
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
2014/1/24 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm. OK. (Shame because the imaginary timeless realm version looks quite good, ontologically speaking.) So what alternative have you in mind? -- You 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
Dear LizR, I want to explore the idea that Realities Evolve. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear LizR, Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm. OK. (Shame because the imaginary timeless realm version looks quite good, ontologically speaking.) So what alternative have you in mind? -- You 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
On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, To answer your questions sequentially. I don't see any way the arithmetical true relations compute or emulate anything. I agree this is not obvious. But it is known by all experts in the field. 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. They just sit there motionless and nothing happens. But that is not a problem for those who accept a relativistic or indexical notion of time. You seems to believe that such a notion is contradictory. But well, it is, with the assumption of a present time. But that is already contradictory with the comp's consequence. You haven't explained how motion arises from non-motion and no one else here understands that either. Many understand this. beyond this, the number of people who understand an argument has no role in the argument itself. Everybody knows that ... is never an argument. Reality is one continuous program I guess you mean active program. I is the activity which is continued, not the program. OK? but every information element actively computes its evolution. ? Which program is it? It's the program that it is of course. ? You seem to think there are a bunches of software reality can pick off some magical shelf and run. I assume that the brain or body, in some general sense, can be emulated by a computer. then the emulation is in arithmetic (as arithmetic is provably Turing complete (the well known non obvious fact that I can explain if you ask)), then it is the consciousness which pick up its local possible software among all those already active (relatively) in arithmetic. Ain't so. Reality runs the program that it actually is that actually computes actual reality. Which reality? Yes, the program is Turing compute and Godel complete, If it is Turing complete, it has to be Gödel incomplete. That's a theorem. or more properly those concepts don't apply since every state is immediately computed from the prior state and that can ALWAYS be done, just as it IS always done in ALL software. In arithmetic yes. In my local computer no. There are software that are not executed. Sorry you can't make sense of the necessity that the computations have to happen SOMEWHERE. So you assume some physical space? I do not. That somewhere is the present moment of reality, So you assume some physical moment/time? I do not. where else would the computations that compute reality take place? In arithmetic. The existence of (finite) computations are theorems in very elementary arithmetic. They follow from the modud ponens and the laws of addition and multiplication, like the distribution of the prime numbers is entirely determined by those laws. The reason your Platonia doesn't work is because it LACKS such an actual present moment that provides the happening that makes my computations real and actual and provides the movement that makes them happen It certainly lacks a present moment, but it explains all by itself why there are machine believing in local correct way in present moment and present space. It explains also why those belief can be knowledge, and sometimes irrational sort of non communicable or rationally justifiable knowledge. And the theory is testable. Anyway, if your theory is clear, you should use it to find a flaw in the UDA, and everybody will learn something if you succeed in the task of finding that flaw. But you must work *in* the theory comp, and use you theory at some other level to find the flaw. You cannot just oppose your theory with the consequence of the reasoning, unless to say that comp is false. But the, like Craig, you must say clearly that your theory is not a computationalist theory, in the sense that it should imply that you will say no to the doctor, or reify a notion of primitive matter with an ad hoc small finite and very special physical reality. Bruno Edgar On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Jan 2014, at 19:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stephen, I agree with your criticism of Bruno's UDA. It has no explanation for becoming, for anything ever happening. I've also pointed this out. However, this is equally true of block time, which you seem to believe in. In block time there is no convincing way anything can ever actually happen. I agree. Stephen seems to be contradictory on that issue. On the other hand my model solves this fundamental problem by positing an actively computing reality How can I distinguish it from the actively computing reality emulated by the arithmetical true relations? Is reality one program? Can you tell which one? Is your computation framework Turing complete? If not is less or more
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:14, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote: I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It only seems to work because we imagine tem as existing out there and subject to our inspection from the outside. As if we are God or something... This very idea is the problem, there is no God's eye view that can map faithfully to any 1p view we might have. In which theory? It is an assumption that is smuggled into science and math. An unjustified extension of the 1p to cover all of the universe. Laplace's Demon is a good example of this. That does not give a theory. I am not attempting to define a formal theory. I don't ask for a formal theory. A clear theory would be enough at first. I am looking for the ontological ideas and assumptions; those things that are believed to be true - like axioms but informal ones- that go into the thinking. yes, informal axiom; but not just one word, especially existence, which has no meaning per se. It looks like god. In the case of Laplace, it was assumed that it was possible for an entity to exist that would have the entire universe laid out before it in its full spatial and temporal extent. OK. Like in QM, except that we get a full multiverse. The block multiverse, so to speak. We know a few more facts than did Laplace. Only that we are multiple. But the 3p picture is the same. The speed of light is finite, the energy of interactions is quantized, measurement requires interactions and work. No problem with this, until we get a contradiction, but none have been shown in nature. Unless we are going to assume the existence of entities that are not subject to these limitations and restrictions, then our assumptions about what the universe is and how our knowledge of it is constructible needs to be corrected of errors, such as those of Laplace. Are we to assume that supernatural entities can communicate with us? Many people actually do! Not sure to see the point here. As a student philosopher of science, I see ontology as extremely important as the foundation upon which our notions of physics are built. If our explanations of the universe assumes impossible entities from the start, the results our reasoning will be rubbish, G.I.G.O. principle, not matter how correct out formalism may be. Obviously. But what is impossible in the comp TOE, which assumes only 0, s, + and * and few axioms? You are just communicating a personal conviction or feeling. Sure, but I think you can see for yourself what its error is. It is most difficult to question assumptions that we believe to be true and have no simple physical falsification. The problem is not the assumption, as you seem to defend comp (unlike me). the point is the validity of a reasoning. By definition of validity, that does not depend of the truth or falsity of the assumptions. Indeed! My complaint is not comp's reasoning, it is the assumptions that it is built on. Comp, thus. It assumes what is known to be impossible; that Becoming can emerge from Being. What is impossible here? On the contrary, comp explains well why arithmetic will contains infinitely many version of a Stephen P. King asserting sincerely that this is impossible, and even explains why King is correct on this in the first person picture. A physical primitive becoming is indeed impossible to extract from a static being. But a psychological feeling of becoming is entirely explained by comp using only addition and multiplication (and logic). You confuse a primitive becoming with becoming. My argument is that it is easy to show the converse case: how Being can emerge from Becoming. What is becoming without any static being? Thus I argue that the Perfection of Platonia emerges from the infinity of temporal processes and interactions. But Platonia (the arithmetical one used by comp) is infinitely simpler than any notion of processes I can imagine. how do you define a processes without using elementary arithmetic? Numbers become eternal, static and perfect in the limit of all possible manifestations of them. We can avoid all the problems of actual infinities and the problem of time, etc. if we do this. Your result would still obtain and the solution to the arithmetic body problem would appear. That's promise, but just define becoming without assuming platonia. I ask for a mathematical definition that anyone can understand when reading it, and thus not relying on any personal intuition of yours. I am OK with that, but not if you oppose it to pretend that there is a flaw in
Re: Tegmark's New Book
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. Until you can give a convincing answer to that your theory can't be taken seriously. Just claiming that different observers have different perspectives on that reality doesn't make those perspectives active, they would still be static. And of course block time has the exact same problem Edgar On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:33:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, To answer your questions sequentially. I don't see any way the arithmetical true relations compute or emulate anything. I agree this is not obvious. But it is known by all experts in the field. 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. They just sit there motionless and nothing happens. But that is not a problem for those who accept a relativistic or indexical notion of time. You seems to believe that such a notion is contradictory. But well, it is, with the assumption of a present time. But that is already contradictory with the comp's consequence. You haven't explained how motion arises from non-motion and no one else here understands that either. Many understand this. beyond this, the number of people who understand an argument has no role in the argument itself. Everybody knows that ... is never an argument. Reality is one continuous program I guess you mean active program. I is the activity which is continued, not the program. OK? but every information element actively computes its evolution. ? Which program is it? It's the program that it is of course. ? You seem to think there are a bunches of software reality can pick off some magical shelf and run. I assume that the brain or body, in some general sense, can be emulated by a computer. then the emulation is in arithmetic (as arithmetic is provably Turing complete (the well known non obvious fact that I can explain if you ask)), then it is the consciousness which pick up its local possible software among all those already active (relatively) in arithmetic. 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.
Re: Tegmark's New Book
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 is no 1p sensations observed when we look at a brain. But comp associates consciousness, including consciousness of time to the 1p that we can associate to computation. That's a complex relation between number and truth about number, ans it cannot be described in any 3p view. Do you agree that if we simulate today, your brain evolution of yesterday, you will feel today the 1p moment of yesterday? is that not enough to doubt that the notion of absolute 1p moment makes sense? Bruno PS I am late in some work, so I might take time to answer the next posts. Edgar On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:33:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2014, at 23:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, To answer your questions sequentially. I don't see any way the arithmetical true relations compute or emulate anything. I agree this is not obvious. But it is known by all experts in the field. 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. They just sit there motionless and nothing happens. But that is not a problem for those who accept a relativistic or indexical notion of time. You seems to believe that such a notion is contradictory. But well, it is, with the assumption of a present time. But that is already contradictory with the comp's consequence. You haven't explained how motion arises from non-motion and no one else here understands that either. Many understand this. beyond this, the number of people who understand an argument has no role in the argument itself. Everybody knows that ... is never an argument. Reality is one continuous program I guess you mean active program. I is the activity which is continued, not the program. OK? but every information element actively computes its evolution. ? Which program is it? It's the program that it is of course. ? You seem to think there are a bunches of software reality can pick off some magical shelf and run. I assume that the brain or body, in some general sense, can be emulated by a computer. then the emulation is in arithmetic (as arithmetic is provably Turing complete (the well known non obvious fact that I can explain if you ask)), then it is the consciousness which pick up its local possible software among all those already active (relatively) in arithmetic. 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.
Re: Tegmark's New Book
Bruno, Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and convincing reason in English. Just requoting some abstract mathematical proof won't suffice unless you can prove it actually applies. If there is really a way to get motion from stasis you should be able to simply state the core of the argument in plain English. 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... 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. 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. 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 is no 1p sensations observed when we look at a brain. But comp associates consciousness, including consciousness of time to the 1p that we can as ... -- 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.