On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No. The totality of reality must be logically consistent and
logically complete if it is computational (for which there is
overwhelming evidence) because if it wasn't it would fall apart at
the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not
exist. Thus since it does exist it must be logically consistent and
logically complete.
The sigma_1 reality (set of all true existence formula ExP(x) with P
decidable) is consistent and logically complete.
But to reason in it, we still have to believe in something bigger. So
OK for the outer reality, and you can define it by the UD or just the
axiom of arithlmetic (weak, without induction). But physics, theology,
etc. needs, from inside, richer believer, who have faith in some
induction axioms. The total physical reality emerge from the dreams of
those machine (relative number).
True that only direct experience is certain on the most fundamental
level, but it is also clear upon consistent examination that direct
experience is never as it seems to be in the sense that there is
clearly a deeper reality that is obscured by direct experience.
I agree. Then with comp, it can't be a physical reality. That one is
only the border of a vaster "thing".
If we accept that reality is logical, which it must be to exist,
Illogical things can exist to, at some higher level. We might dream.
then all else follows and we can continue to discuss. Otherwise all
would be meaningless and futile which it clearly and self-evidently
is not, since if reality was not logical we could not function
within it which we do to varying degrees of competence. Therefore
our direct experience tells us that reality is a consistent logical
structure.
No problem. With comp the "outer reality" is logical, indeed
arithmetical. But the internal realities are more complex, they escape
the logical, the physical, the mathematical, somehow.
We can simply define what reality is = everything that exists.
Hmm, that is already too much set theoretical for me. At the outer
level, only 0 exist, and its successors, perhaps.
The "interesting" existence are the objects in the stable or not dream
of the numbers.
My point is that once we assume computationalism explicitly, we have
not much choice in the matter (with the usual Occam). It makes also
comp experimentally falsifiable (with some nuances).
We don't have to "search" for reality since it is everywhere and
cannot be escaped.
That's consciousness. Reality is more like God, we are ignorant and
can only hope to approach it.
What we search for is not reality, but its structural details.
We need to make our basic assumption clear, and then reason
"interrogatively", if we want to do science.
We have not solved the "reality problem", and many people are even not
aware that the assumption of a physical universe is part of Aristotle
theology.
Lastly no, I do not believe in any "primitive physical reality". Not
at all. At its fundamental level reality is information running in
ontological energy which is not anything physical,
You might avoid the term "energy" in this case. It can be misleading
as "energy" is a typical physical notion.
it's simply my name for the actuality and presence of existence
which is information and realness in the present moment rather than
anything physical.
That is a bit fuzzy. It seems to be the indexical personal existence.
It is the actuality and presence of reality which manifests as a
present moment in which everything, including ourselves, exists.
"ourselves" might not be that clear, especially from someone wanting
to not use the "human" predicate.
It is the locus of reality which conveys actual reality upon the
computationally evolving information forms within it. Because of its
non-physical nature OE is difficult to properly describe as Lao Tse
noted about the Tao which was his take on OE.
Lao-Tse is good. I think comp makes precise some of your tenets. In my
long thesis I provide an arithmetical interpretation of Lao-Tse, and
you can look at my Plotinus paper for an arithmetical interpretation
of Plotinus. All mystics seems to be close to the discourse of the
universal machine. We have the tools to already ask their opinion on
all this.
Put in another way, once you assume comp, you can use computer science
to use math in the field. It makes things precise, but also
constructive and testable. Of course that asks for work.
Bruno
Edgar
On Monday, December 23, 2013 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first
giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is
defined. Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and
nothing will go anywhere.
If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and
that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is
now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable
meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become
the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than
ideology, faith or myth.
But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all
atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like
them, should have been discarded millennia ago....
Edgar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
