Edgar, Well the way in which I posed my question betrayed my lack of understanding, but the answers were illuminating.
So in this vein I will pose another. There is a fellow Peter Beamish, who posts on the Mind/Brain and Theoretical lists (who is a biologist with a PhD from MIT for work done at Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst), that believes that in addition to clock time as in SR and GR, there is also a second time he calls Rhythm Based Time RBT that is independent of clock time and that aging of biological organisms depends only on RBT. As a result he thinks that resolves the Twin Paradox. I am not aware of any experiments with significant SR that validate or falsify biological aging. So I wonder if anyone has info on either possibility. Perhaps the answers will again be illuminating. Here is the best link to Peter's thinking that Google came up with. Peter calls RBT "now time". Peter even wrote a book on RBT called Dancing with the Whales. So apparently Edgar, you are not alone. http://www.oceancontact.com/research/ps/ps118.htm I might add that my metaverse string cosmology also suggests the existence of two times, actually two overlapping spacetimes within each universe. I had supposed that the two times were synchronous, but maybe not. I think the aging question is important. Richard On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Yes, that is a good example. R-computations, the R-math computations that > actual compute the current information state of the universe, never have a > halting problem because they are a program that always simply computes the > next state from the current state which is ALWAYS possible. > > The Godel incompleteness and Halting problems only apply to H-math cases > where a human mathematician comes up with a mathematical statement in > advance, and then tries to get an automated system to computationally reach > that state and thus prove it. > > Reality doesn't work this way. It never 'imagines' any state to then try > and reach it computationally. That would amount to teleology. R-math just > always computes the next state from the present state. Just as ordinary > software programs never have any problem at all in continually producing > programmed output, so R-computations never do either. > > R-computations ALWAYS happily compute the current state of reality no > matter what Bruno, Godel, or Turing or anybody else postulates about H-math. > > The proof of this is clearly that the universe DOES happily keep on > existing, in spite of any H-mathematician telling us it doesn't or might > not, or couldn't. > > Best, > Edgar > > > On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:07:35 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > >> Edgar, >> >> We recently learned on this list that a Turing machine does not halt >> based on real numbers and apparently can only halt for the natural numbers. >> I wonder if that may correspond to your claim of the computations of nature >> being different from the computations of humans. If I remember correctly >> you referred to the former as R computations and the latter as H >> computations. >> Richard >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >>> Russell, >>> >>> And, as I mentioned, there is exhaustive evidence from cognitive >>> science, and the sciences of physiology and perception, of the many >>> specific different ways that humans DO model an external reality in their >>> internal mental models of reality. >>> >>> Why do you just reject all this well documented science out of hand? >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:54:48 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:40:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>> > Russell, >>>> > >>>> > Well, there is overwhelming evidence of many sorts. The very fact >>>> that you >>>> > and I can even communicate about this issue is one proof, unless you >>>> think >>>> > I'm just a pesky figment of your imagination! >>>> >>>> It is evidence only of an intersubjective reality. That there is a >>>> common reality (to us) that we can agree on. Indeed, COMP, to take one >>>> theory of consciousness, predicts the existence of such an >>>> intersubjective >>>> reality. But, it is not evidence of a reality independent of all >>>> observers. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > And of course that can't possibly be true since I was here just fine >>>> before >>>> > I ever met you.... >>>> > >>>> > The obvious fact that we have to eat and breathe to survive, unless >>>> you >>>> > believe that just imagining food and oxygen is enough to sustain us. >>>> > >>>> >>>> That is evidence of the Anthropic Principle (there is much stronger >>>> evidence of that too), ie what we observe as reality must be >>>> consistent with our existence within that reality. The Anthropic >>>> Principle >>>> does not imply an observer independent reality - that would be a >>>> reverse syllogism fallacy. >>>> >>>> > So again I would say you are confusing the internal simulation of >>>> reality >>>> > that all minds produce, and that everyone thinks is the real world he >>>> lives >>>> > in, with the real external reality that all minds simulate each in >>>> their >>>> > own way. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Keep going. You still haven't provided any evidence that this "real >>>> external reality" actually exists! Until you do so, I will state that >>>> there is nothing here to confuse. Of course, if you actually succeed, >>>> not only will many people be surprised, you will undoubtedly be the >>>> most famous philosopher since Aristotle and Plato. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >>>> Principal, High Performance Coders >>>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@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-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/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.
