On 24 Dec 2013, at 18:18, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net>
wrote:
Bruno,
No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the
concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math.
Really? Discovery channel would disagree with you ;-)
Indeed :)
In fact "human" is arguably a human invention. prime numbers is a
modest discovery by some human mathematician, but the concept simply
does not involve any dependence on humans. Edgar seems to take human
and reality for granted, but those are quite higher order pattern in
arithmetic viewed internally, with computationalism.
Bruno
The logico-mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a
prime number. Why? Because reality doesn't care whether a number is
prime or not. The computations of reality are probably pretty
simple. For example one of the most basic computations is the
conservation of particle properties in particle interactions. All
that involves is simply keeping track of a relatively small set of
natural numbers and rearranging them into valid particles except for
the case of the dimensional particle properties such as energy and
momenta which are not really continuous since reality is granular at
the elemental level so there is no need for infinitesimals.
Give me an example of a single physical (natural) process that says
anything about primes? I could be wrong here but I can't think of a
single example. Can you?
Done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodical_cicadas
All human doctors ARE digital. They vary in competence. Judge them
on their competence....
You state "Because the first person indeterminacy is not computable,
nor is its domain, and the physical laws rely on this." This doesn't
compute for me. Please explain what you actually mean and why.... It
seems to me that's just a human perspective of computable reality
and thus the product of computations in mind.
Finally you state "But to define computation, you need to be realist
on some part of arithmetic, including some non computable
arithmetical assertions, that we can prove to exist."
Again you are trying to impose results from human math on the
computational system of reality to which they don't apply. Try to
apply that to a running software program and no matter how much you
try it still runs. Reality keeps running in spite of your human math
telling you it can't run.
? Perhaps you may choose to have a closer look at UDA and Bruno's
other work, as you seem to sometimes be leaning towards it. It can
take awhile to wrap ones head around First Person Indeterminacy and
its implications, given comp hypothesis.
A better understanding of it would, even if you disagree, avoid
unfruitful discussions with "Reality is such and such" claims, as
his work doesn't make those claims, nor seeks to support or negate
that type of claim.
To put it roughly from my perspective, Bruno's work concerns
examining consequences of mechanist hypothesis against the backdrop
of the discovery of universal machines and is not philosophical in
the sense of defending some interpretation of "Reality" over others.
True, he will argue that this or that ontology is not compatible
with comp, but to mix this up with Philosophy as in defending an
ontological stance, is to judge too quickly, even though
understandable. PGC
Eppur si muove!
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:48:24 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to
include theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality
is that reality includes everything that exists and theories of
reality most certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from
the old dualistic definition of reality in which some things
(generally the 'physical' world) are real and some things aren't
real (generally thoughts e.g. about the physical world).
While this dualistic definition of reality may be useful in daily
life it fails on the philosophical level. In truth the entirety of
reality is computational and both 'physical' events and mental are
both part of that same single computational nexus. Roger gives the
example of hitting a table with his fist as something that is real
as opposed to a theory about reality which isn't but in fact the
reality of the experience of both is electrical signals (information
computations) in the brain. They are both computations in the brain.
The proper definition is that everything that exists is real and
therefore part of reality. Everything that exists is a
computationally evolving information state in reality and that is
why it is real, however its reality is exactly what it actually is,
what its computational forms actually are, and this is true for
everything including both what our minds interpret as 'physical'
events and 'mental'. If you must make that distinction then of
course everything without exception in our thoughts and experience
is mental, but the deeper truth is that its all computationally
evolving information however it's interpreted by our minds.
Thus the only philosophically consistent definition of reality
includes everything that exists without exception, including
thoughts and theories.
But there is a deeper truth here in that reality itself exists
independently of its particular contents as a thing in itself. In
fact prior to the big bang it was empty of any actualized
information at all, but it still existed in a state similar to a
generalized quantum vacuum.
This reality itself is what makes the computations that occur within
it real and actual and have being, it is what gives them life. It is
what I call 'Ontological Energy' which is simply the (non-physical)
space of reality whose presence manifests as the present moment in
which we and everything exists. All the computationally evolving
information that exists exists like waves, ripples and currents in
the sea of existence itself, in the ocean of ontological energy, the
logical space or locus of reality and actuality.
Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that
exists exists as a computationally evolving information form within
it. There is nothing outside of it because there is no outside.
Therefore there is no possibility of anything being 'not real' or
not part of reality. There is only the different categories of
reality of different information forms within reality.
Edgar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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.