On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:07:07 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, > > In a computational reality everything consists of information in the > computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it > its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce real > universe results. > > All this information is ultimately quantized into a basic unit I call an > R-bit. Thus all of reality is constructed of different arrangements of > R-bits. > > Now the basic insight is that R-bits are actually just numbers, let's call > them R-numbers to distinguish from the H-numbers of human mathematics which > are quite different. > > This means that the actual numbers of reality are actually the real > elemental constituents OF reality. Numbers make up reality, and everything > in reality is constructed only of these R-numbers. R-numbers = R-bits. > > This neatly addresses the problem of how there can be abstract concepts > such as number that describe but aren't an actual part of reality. In this > view there can't be, since the actual numbers of reality are the actual > constituents of everything in reality. > > As Pythagoros claimed, "all is number", in the realest sense possible. > > > Now what do these R-numbers look like? > > 1. Every R-number is exactly the same as every other R-number. They are > fungible or interchangeable. They do not exist in any sequences such as 1, > 2, 3 ... They don't have ordinal or cardinal 'tags' attached to distinguish > them. There are not different numbers, or different kinds of number. All > numbers are exactly the same. > > What human H-math calls ordinal or cardinal characteristics of number are > not intrinsic to R-numbers themselves, but are relationships between > R-number groups and sets. These concepts are part of R-math, not > characteristics of R-numbers. > > 2. R-numbers are finite. The universe contains only some finite number of > basic R-bits, and since R-bits are themselves numbers, the number of > numbers in the computational universe is finite. There are no R-number > infinities. > > 3. The only R-numbers that exist correspond to what human H-math would try > to think of as the non-zero positive integers up to the finite limit of > R-bits in existence. There is no R-number 0, no negative R-numbers, no > fractional or irrational R-numbers. These are examples of how human H-math > generalizes and tries to extend the basic relational concepts of R-math to > H-numbers. It is by making these kind of extensions and generalizations > that H-math diverges from R-math and thus has real problems in accurately > describing reality. > > > What does R-math look like? > > 1. R-math is the actual computations that compute actual reality that > compute the real empirical objective state of the information universe. > H-math, while originally modeled on R-math has greatly expanded beyond that > to enormous complexities which though they sometimes can accurately > describe aspects of reality, do NOT actually COMPUTE it. R-math is what > actually actively COMPUTES reality, and only what is necessary to do that. > > 2. R-math is probably a rather small set of logico-mathematical rules, > just what is necessary to actually compute reality at the elemental level. > It will include active routines such as those that compute the conservation > of the small set of particle properties that make up all elemental > particles, and the rules that govern the binding of particle properties in > atomic and molecular matter. > > 3. Thus R-math consists of the logical operators of the active routines > that actively compute reality, rather than the static equations and > principles of H-math. > > > So the take away is that : > > 1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information only. And > that information consists only of different arrangements of elemental > R-bits. And these elemental R-bits are the actual numbers on the basis of > which R-math continually computes the current state of the universe. > > 2. Thus everything in the universe is made up of numbers and only numbers. > > 3. All the things in the universe are just various arrangements and > relationships between these numbers. > > 4. These are continually being recomputed by all the interactive programs > (all just aspects of a single universal program) that make up all the > processes in the universe. > > 5. These processes follow fundamental logico-mathematical rules which are > part of what I call the extended fine tuning (the set of every > non-reducible aspect of reality including the rules of logic it follows). > These are analogous to the basic machine operations of silicon computers. > > 6. The programs of reality are complex sequences of these elemental > operations acting on R-numbers which are just R-bits. In general these > sequences incorporate standard routines such as the particle property > conservation routine. > > > The aggregate result is the universe we exist within which consists > entirely of different types of information, a fact which can be verified > by direct objective observation. > > Our minds each internally simulate this information universe as the > physical, dimensional universe in which mind tells us we live. These > simulations are a convenient evolutionary illusion that enables us, as > programs within a universe of programs, to more effectively compute our > lives and function more successfully. They enable our survival as > individuals and as a species. That is why they have evolved, even as they > conceal the true underlying information nature of reality. > > > Edgar > This is as good as any of the other explanations of maths, maybe better than a few too. But all explanations of math share similar characteristics and all are absent certain others. Most importantly I would like to say, is this scourge of explanation for explanation sake. It's as if contemporary frontier scientists believe they are special to speak even if they have nothing to show for themselves in genius. Their explanations for explanations sake are somehow more glorious and tittilating that the explanations of Edgar or the bloke waiting for the number 29 bus of a Saturday morning. But on what grounds, assuming the bloke at the bus stop has an explanation that doesn't produce anything, and what's his face that just knocked out a book about the infinite infinity of mathematics that doesn't tell us anything new about mathematics or the nature of reality or even infinity except that his one is apparently the biggest one yet. On what grounds? I've produced a theory of the nature of maths, and my predicts and overhauls, and maths actually becomes corrected in the course of the process. Not corrected in some philosophical sense, but in a sense that unleashes new potential and opens up new horizons. I'm not saying it's right, but it predicts and can be falsified, so who cares if its wrong. At least I had the courage to make one that nailed its colours to something hard. I need help completing on it because I want the maths components to be first rate. Unbelievably I've actually managed to get myself into a process of discussion and if he is sold, formal collaboration, to bring the theory to fruition. And him one of the worlds top most decorated mathematicians. How ace is that chuck :)
-- 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.
