Stephen, If everything is information being computed then obviously all observers are also part of that and thus analogous to running programs interacting computationally with the other running programs of reality. I guess I hadn't made that clear yet...
Everything is analogous to a running program. Reality can be thought of as a single universal running program that can be analyzed into individual running programs. The distinction is that biological programs construct internal models of their program environments to improve their functioning. Non-biological programs just interact according to their natures with no such internal simulation data models of their environments... Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:58:15 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > So far what I am missing are detailed explanations and definitions of > terms. Yes, we could read your book, but we wonder if it's content has > those explanations and definitions. OTOH, I have often explained my ideas > -which are rather technical- and have had thunderous silence in response. I > like people like Bruno that take the time to explain themselves, albeit in > very technical terms that are hard to comprehend at first. I find many of > his ideas very useful and have even come to agree with some of them. > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of 'Realization' > deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with serious insights on > how to directly experience reality as it actually is such as: > > 1. The fundamental experience of our existence, our consciousness within a > present moment through which clock time flows and events happen, is the > direct experience of the continuing extension of the radial P-time > dimension of our 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe. Our fundamental > personal experience is our direct experience of the fundamental > cosmological process. > > > This is not a new concept for me. It does not get to the questions I am > asking. If you had a toy model that would explain the basic concept, how it > works, I would be more interested. Please understand that I have been > studying philosophy of science and mathematics for a long time, focusing on > quantum gravity phenomenology, the problem of time and the mind-body > problem; the hard problems and have read just about every book and article > on the subject. > Lately, I have been working on a proposal to research a novel form of > computation that requires a very deep dive into algebraic topology and > complexity theory and have learned a few things, one of which is that > computation and information are not simple concepts and have to be treated > very carefully and formally -as much as possible. Tossing the word > computation around as if it where a magic amulet to banish ignorance isn't > helping me. Understanding how the physical world and computations work > together is not a trivial problem and one should have at least a basic > model of how it works to communicate one's offered explanations. > > > > > 2. It is possible to directly experience that everything is its > information only. > > > What else is there? What we experience are distinctions that make a > difference, to paraphrase Bateson. > > > > With understanding it becomes quite clear and directly observable that for > anything to be observed and experienced it simply must consist of > information. If it did not consist of information it would not be > observable. What we mistake for material things in a physical universe are > simply associations of different kinds of pure information. For example > what we normally think of as material stone is actually an association of > colors, feelings of texture, resistance to motion, temperature etc. all of > which are actually just different types of information. > > > Of course, this is not a new idea. > > > > > So it is very very clear that everything is its information only, and that > this can be directly experienced. In fact we all directly experience this > all the time already, we just don't realize that we do..... > > > Ah, but that is wrong. There must exist entities to whom those > distinctions that make a difference occur. Information alone explains > nothing. It is possible to define "entities" using information + dynanics, > as Louis H. Kauffman does with his notion of an eigenform, but this > requires that we treat information in a more subtle way that mere allusions > to "direct experience", etc. > > > > > Things have no 'self-substances'. They are all pure information whose only > 'substance' is OE. This is a modern statement of the ancient Vedic insight > that 'all forms are empty'. > > > I slightly agree! It is easy to define things starting with a core of > self-reference - that aspect of computation that is the physical system's > exact self-simulation- and build out from there to consider how other > physical systems interact and communicate, but one has to have a basis of > concepts that include a pluralities of observers even if such are entities > only defined as that which a distinction makes a difference. Information is > *of a thing* and *to a thing*, it is not an independent substance that we > can mold into what ever form we like. > > > > > > 3. In my treatment of 'Realization' I also suggest that IF anyone needs a > God then the only rational definition is the universe itself because then > there is no doubt as to God's existence, and his attributes then become a > matter of scientific inquiry. > > > > I have no need for that hypothesis! > > > > So Stephen, as you can see, my book is hardly the 'New Age' nonsense your > knee jerk reaction imagined... > > > It is you that is having that imagination. I would not level an accusation > of New Age nonsense at your book. You might like Andrew Soltau's > book<http://www.andrewsoltau.com/>as an example of a good attempt to answer > hard questions about "reality" > that stays just outside of the New Age. For a hard science take, I > recommend Russell Standish's *A theory of Nothing > <http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html>*. > > I am far too ADHD to write a publishable book.... > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > "how to directly experience reality as it actually is." Now I am most > definitely not buying your book. Sorry, but that statement is anathema to > me. I have had quite enough of people claiming to have a way for me to know > "what is really going on". 99.99999999999999% of the time they > are peddling snake oil. > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stephen, > > A couple of responses. > > Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own > merits... Don't shoehorn! > > Only information is being computed. It exists independent of things. What > are called 'things' are mental interpretations of computational information > domains extracted by biological organisms to facilitate their internal > simulation computations of a continuous reality. > > The information in reality is continuous but it does manifest as domains. > Humans look at domains and variously simulate them as things. E.g. surfers > extract waves from a continuous ocean while oceanographers see currents, > and smelt see tides. There are no individual 'things' in reality because it > is a continuous computational nexus of information. E.g looking at some > area of continuous information we can identify either leaves, twigs, > branches or a whole tree. It's all one continuous information segment but > minds can separate it into overlapping 'things' to facilitate mental > computations. If you understand how robots extract 'things' from raw > sensory input you will understand that. It's a very complex and difficult > and eventually an artificial process dependent on the structure of the > observer's mind... > > Actually the information world, the fact that all is its information only > IS directly observable with understanding and practice. I explain this in > Part VI of my book titled "Realization", that is how to directly experience > reality as it actually is. > > Yes, understanding QM and GR cl > > ... -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
