Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a simple consequence of the Church thesis. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. It is not important for the UDA. But it is, nevertheless, not inconsistent with the Anthropic Principle either. Bruno would say it is necessary for the manifestation of other conciousnesses to us. I reserve my judgement on this... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@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-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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
I mostly agree Edgar. I would split hairs with you about using the word 'relationships' as a noun for the fundamentals. I see relating as an aspect of sense and sense-making, so that it places the capacity to relate (pansensitivity) as the fundamental. I think you are right about R-bits being identical, however I would not say that they exist in an absolute sense, but are rather the most restricted type of sensory relationship that we can detect. In this way, R-bits are not actually what make up macroscopic experience in an absolute sense, because our native macroscopic perspectives have their own primitive thresholds of sensitivity. The universe senses and makes sense on every level, so that humans can live without knowledge of atoms or R-bits and have a relatively complete understanding of their world, just as microphenomenal experiences are relatively complete without having any hint of human existence. Craig On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:23:14 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. Your abacus example is A Propos to the points in my post. The important insight in my post is that all R-bits, that make up all the information that constitutes the current state of the universe, are identical. It is the RELATIONSHIPS of these R-bits, not the R-bits themselves that give us the H-numbers used in H-math. This is obvious from a proper understanding of binary numbers in particular, in which it is the bits that are clearly elemental, and all numbers are relationships of a single type of bit, rather than being elemental in themselves. H-math (and Bruno) assumes that these individual numbers are what is elemental and actually real and extant in reality. That there is some elemental thing called prime number 17 that is an actual fixed unalterable component of fundamental reality. I don't see anyway that makes sense, or is necessary. it confuses understanding of actual reality... What actually exists fundamentally, it seems to me, is a finite number of identical R-bits, rather than H-math numbers. It is unclear to what extent the R-math that actually computes reality in terms of these R-bits, needs any concepts like H-numbers, but to the extent it does, these are relationships, part of R-math, rather than elemental R-numbers themselves. R-numbers are just the set of all identical R-bits among which R-math can define the (small?) set of relationships it needs to compute actual reality. It is in this sense that I stated that all actual R-numbers are all just the identical R-bits which are just related and computed into all the information that constitutes the universe. in this sense then everything can be said to be composed of numbers=bits, and only of numbers=bits. Or more properly of numbers=bits and their relationships. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:07:48 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Craig, Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime. In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as 17 are not necessary for reality to compute the universe. I suspect what reality does is more 1:1 comparisons. E.g. when reality makes a computation to conserve and redistribute particle properties among the outgoing particles of a particle interaction, it doesn't need to count up 17 of anything, it just has to know they are all distributed which it can do with simple 1;1 comparisons. It can do that by 1:1 comparisons, not by any notion of numbers such as 1, 2, or 17 much less any notion of primes. I suspect that in this regard Bruno may have more insight, but superficially I agree with you. Just as an abacus can be used to perform H-Math functions, on a physical level, all that is happening is that beads are sliding to one side or another (R-Math?). I consider H-Math not to be limited to humans, but more along the
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a simple consequence of the Church thesis. I understand that, but my argument has never been with Bruno's approach to Comp, it is with the assumption of Comp itself. I have a different understanding of the relation between information and consciousness which makes more sense, and it explains why Comp is false, and why it cannot be proved false logically. Craig -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 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-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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 14 February 2014 07:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. What you have to do is show that either his assumptions are wrong, or that he has made a mistake in the logical inferences he draws from them. The correspondence with reality comes down to whether the original assumptions are realistic (i.e. accord with reality) or not. -- 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 13 February 2014 08:45, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the concept of prime numbers that is political, its the assumption that we must agree that they are important to understanding consciousness. usually scientists agree with is political. I would be more sympathetic with in spite of what scientists/authorities agree with. If you agree with the axioms of comp, you have agreed that numbers are important to understanding consciousness. In particular, Yes Doctor doesn't work unless consciousness is digital. Of course you may disagree with Yes Doctor - I'm not sure that I would agree, given the choice! -- 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
It seems to me that the situation summarises as follows. Craig disagrees with the axioms of comp, in particular with Yes Doctor and hence parts company with Bruno at step 0. Edgar agrees with Yes Doctor (because in his view consciousness is the product of a computation) and hence, if he is going to disagree with comp, needs to find a flaw in Bruno's other axioms or his logical chain of inferences. I suspect the weak link to attack here *might* be Peano arithmetic... -- 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:14:18PM +1300, LizR wrote: It seems to me that the situation summarises as follows. Craig disagrees with the axioms of comp, in particular with Yes Doctor and hence parts company with Bruno at step 0. Edgar agrees with Yes Doctor (because in his view consciousness is the product of a computation) and hence, if he is going to disagree with comp, needs to find a flaw in Bruno's other axioms or his logical chain of inferences. I suspect the weak link to attack here *might* be Peano arithmetic... I don't see why - with the Church thesis, Peano arithmetic is just as good as any other system capable of universal computation. Bruno takes Arithmetical Realism precisely because it is so uncontroversial. One could equally assert the reality of any system capable of universal computation. When it comes to step 8, of addressing the non-robust universe move, ISTM that this move is actually one of denying arithmetical reality, of denying the real existence of a universal computer in fact. But I think that would do violence to the Church thesis also. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@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-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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 14 February 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:14:18PM +1300, LizR wrote: It seems to me that the situation summarises as follows. Craig disagrees with the axioms of comp, in particular with Yes Doctor and hence parts company with Bruno at step 0. Edgar agrees with Yes Doctor (because in his view consciousness is the product of a computation) and hence, if he is going to disagree with comp, needs to find a flaw in Bruno's other axioms or his logical chain of inferences. I suspect the weak link to attack here *might* be Peano arithmetic... I don't see why - with the Church thesis, Peano arithmetic is just as good as any other system capable of universal computation. That comment isn't my opinion, it was intended for Edgar. Since he thinks human maths is different to reality maths, it seems like the obvious starting point (for him) if he's going to disagree with comp. -- 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
Russell, But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is 1p perspectives of conscious human observers. To me, that's just solipsism in new clothes. And it implies there was no reality before humans. I think the correct view is that reality is independent of human perception, that it being functioning quite fine for 13.7 billion years before humans came along. But that humans each have their own internal VIEWS or SIMULATIONS of reality, which they mistake for actual human independent reality. Bruno, and a few others seem to MISTAKE those internal views of reality for human independent reality itself. That's a fundamental and deadly mistake in trying to make sense of reality... Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a simple consequence of the Church thesis. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. It is not important for the UDA. But it is, nevertheless, not inconsistent with the Anthropic Principle either. Bruno would say it is necessary for the manifestation of other conciousnesses to us. I reserve my judgement on this... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 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-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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:51:18PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is 1p perspectives of conscious human observers. That is most certainly not the case with COMP, which posits an ontological reality that is computationally universal (in which case it may as well be Peano arithmetic). It might be levelled at my world view, described in Thoery of Nothingm although to be fair, I do not make any sort of ontological commitment, but just argue that ontological reality doesn't really have any empirical meaning. To me, that's just solipsism in new clothes. No - because in both COMP, and in my theory of nothing, the presence of other observers is a predicted consequence. Hardly solipsism. Perhaps you mean something else - idealism perhaps? And it implies there was no reality before humans. If by human you mean observers in general, then yes - it does imply that. There is no reality without observers. I think the correct view is that reality is independent of human perception, that it being functioning quite fine for 13.7 billion years before humans came along. But that humans each have their own internal VIEWS or SIMULATIONS of reality, which they mistake for actual human independent reality. What evidence do you offer for this assumption? Bruno, and a few others seem to MISTAKE those internal views of reality for human independent reality itself. It is intersubjective reality. But strictly speaking, not independent. That's a fundamental and deadly mistake in trying to make sense of reality... Actually, it has rather a lot of advantages for understanding as compared with the alternatives. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@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-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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:51:18 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is 1p perspectives of conscious human observers. To me, that's just solipsism in new clothes. And it implies there was no reality before humans. I don't think anyone here (or anyone that I have ever spoken with, really) thinks that there was no reality before humans. Idealism, or the kind of Pansensitivity that I suggest need not have anything to do with human beings at all. The issue is whether anything can simply 'exist' independently of all possibility of experience. I think that if that were possible, then any form of perception or experience would be redundant and implausible. More importantly though, in what way would a phenomenon which has no possibility of detection be different than nothingness? We can create experiences that remind us of matter and energy just by imagining them, and we can derive some pleasure and meaning from that independently of any functional consideration, but what reason would the laws of physics or arithmetic have to accidentally make sensation and participation? I think the correct view is that reality is independent of human perception, that it being functioning quite fine for 13.7 billion years before humans came along. But that humans each have their own internal VIEWS or SIMULATIONS of reality, which they mistake for actual human independent reality. Bruno, and a few others seem to MISTAKE those internal views of reality for human independent reality itself. That's a fundamental and deadly mistake in trying to make sense of reality... Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a simple consequence of the Church thesis. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. It is not important for the UDA. But it is, nevertheless, not inconsistent with the Anthropic Principle either. Bruno would say it is necessary for the manifestation of other conciousnesses to us. I reserve my judgement on this... -- 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-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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 14 February 2014 14:51, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Russell, But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is 1p perspectives of conscious human observers. What on earth has this got to do with block universes??? -- 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 14 February 2014 15:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: And it implies there was no reality before humans. If by human you mean observers in general, then yes - it does imply that. There is no reality without observers. What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presumably) no observers in existence in the universe. Are you saying it wouldn't exist if we hadn't evolved to detect it (e.g. if humans hadn't evolved, or if we had never invented radio telescopes) ? -- 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 14 February 2014 15:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: And it implies there was no reality before humans. If by human you mean observers in general, then yes - it does imply that. There is no reality without observers. What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presumably) no observers in existence in the universe. Are you saying it wouldn't exist if we hadn't evolved to detect it (e.g. if humans hadn't evolved, or if we had never invented radio telescopes) ? Yes - exactly. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@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-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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 11 Feb 2014, at 17:07, 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. That begin to looks like comp. But still, by the FPI, the physical cannot appears to be made of numbers (and they are not). Physics is an inside view. If you use computational reality in the standard sense, all you need to postulate is elementary arithmetic, but you have to retrieve both mind and matter from only the arithmetical relation. Reading UDA would save a lot of time, if, like here, you seem to agree with the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science. 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. But this looks like nonsense to me. You are using number in a non standard sense, like computation. 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. That is ultrafinitism, probably of the physicalist type. Why not, but there will be difficulties with step 8. 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. If comp is true, both physics and consciousness are independent of such detail. 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. That is magical thinking. You must avoid uses of real, reality, etc. This beg the entire discussion. 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. You will need a universal machine or number, and you can't define what that means without some infinity, at least at the epistemological 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. Where do such particles come from? What are they? 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. What does that mean? And that information consists only of different arrangements of elemental R-bits. And
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: I think that the opposite of everything that you are saying makes more sense.: On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:07:07 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. The universe, and everything in it, consists of no information, but only experiences which are informed through aesthetic acquaintance. Information consists of no elemental structures at all, but rather is distributed metaphorically in gaps between experiences using a variety quantitative shortcuts. That makes sense with comp. 2. Thus everything in the universe is made up of numbers and only numbers. Thus nothing in the universe is made up of numbers, which is why we have developed mathematics to enumerate what has no number itself. Correct with comp. 3. All the things in the universe are just various arrangements and relationships between these numbers. Nothing in the universe is merely an arrangement or relationship between numbers. OK. (Nothing in the physical and mental universe is merely an ...) 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. There are no processes in the universe which are only computations. Nothing in the universe depends on a continuous computation and nothing that interacts can be purely a program. OK. 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. Logico-mathematical rules are abstracted from approximation and insensitivity, and are appropriate only for controlling forms and functions from the outside in. Correct. 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 reality of programs is simple logical elements operating on each other with no profoundly meaningful application to the actual presence of the universe or ourselves. Here you depart from comp. 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. The result is that the concepts we call number and information consist entirely of the same type of reductive expectations, a fact which can be verified by direct subjective participation. Self-referentially relative numbers agree with you. 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. Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. Bruno Craig 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
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. I agree that it is an important political consideration, but I don't think it is a scientific consideration. At one time the starting point statements that authorities agree with were found in the book of Genesis. Craig Bruno Craig 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. I agree that it is an important political consideration, but I don't think it is a scientific consideration. At one time the starting point statements that authorities agree with were found in the book of Genesis. The analogy does not work, because the statement that 17 is a prime number is everything but political. But if you want start a party on the idea that 17 is not prime, you are free to make it political. You will need propaganda, torture, terror, and many things like that to keep power, but then why not, we are used to this. My point was only that if you want to communicate something to others, you have to adopt a language they understand, and start your theory from statement on which they can agree for the sake of the argument or not (that's private for the others). If not, all what you do is already a sort of propaganda. I'm afraid. Bruno Craig Bruno Craig 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-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. 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. 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
Bruno, and Craig, Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime. In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as 17 are not necessary for reality to compute the universe. I suspect what reality does is more 1:1 comparisons. E.g. when reality makes a computation to conserve and redistribute particle properties among the outgoing particles of a particle interaction, it doesn't need to count up 17 of anything, it just has to know they are all distributed which it can do with simple 1;1 comparisons. It can do that by 1:1 comparisons, not by any notion of numbers such as 1, 2, or 17 much less any notion of primes. Ordinal and cardinal number, and all their properties such as odd, even or prime are thus characteristic of human H-math, not of the actual R-math of reality that actually computes the current state of the universe, at least so far as I can see. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. I agree that it is an important political consideration, but I don't think it is a scientific consideration. At one time the starting point statements that authorities agree with were found in the book of Genesis. The analogy does not work, because the statement that 17 is a prime number is everything but political. But if you want start a party on the idea that 17 is not prime, you are free to make it political. You will need propaganda, torture, terror, and many things like that to keep power, but then why not, we are used to this. My point was only that if you want to communicate something to others, you have to adopt a language they understand, and start your theory from statement on which they can agree for the sake of the argument or not (that's private for the others). If not, all what you do is already a sort of propaganda. I'm afraid. Bruno Craig Bruno Craig 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-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. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
Edgar, On 12 Feb 2014, at 17:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Craig, Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime. Which confirms that you are using computational in a mysterious idiosyncratic personal sense, and I recall you that you have never answered my question: what do you mean by computational, reality, and in this case needs. In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as 17 are not necessary for reality to compute the universe. I suspect what reality does is more 1:1 comparisons. E.g. when reality makes a computation to conserve and redistribute particle properties among the outgoing particles of a particle interaction, it doesn't need to count up 17 of anything, it just has to know they are all distributed which it can do with simple 1;1 comparisons. It can do that by 1:1 comparisons, not by any notion of numbers such as 1, 2, or 17 much less any notion of primes. Ordinal and cardinal number, and all their properties such as odd, even or prime are thus characteristic of human H-math, not of the actual R-math of reality that actually computes the current state of the universe, at least so far as I can see. In the theory according to which my brain (or more general) is Turing emulable, there is no such universe. We don't need, and worst, cannot use, the 1p-plural evidence, for its existence, but we can find the stable logic of the observable (and normally all physical *laws*). In my franc opinion, if you don't mind, you do a similar mistake than Craig, reifying your own 1p intuition. Yu have not learn how to communicate in the scientific matter. You seem unable to make clear your assumption, and you miss the opportunity to test your theory by comparing it with the one based on the standard definition of computation. You do bad philosophy of science if you mistreat the basic definitions everyone agree on. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. I agree that it is an important political consideration, but I don't think it is a scientific consideration. At one time the starting point statements that authorities agree with were found in the book of Genesis. The analogy does not work, because the statement that 17 is a prime number is everything but political. But if you want start a party on the idea that 17 is not prime, you are free to make it political. You will need propaganda, torture, terror, and many things like that to keep power, but then why not, we are used to this. My point was only that if you want to communicate something to others, you have to adopt a language they understand, and start your theory from statement on which they can agree for the sake of the argument or not (that's private for the others). If not, all what you do is already a sort of propaganda. I'm afraid. Bruno Craig Bruno Craig 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-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. 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-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. 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
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. I agree that it is an important political consideration, but I don't think it is a scientific consideration. At one time the starting point statements that authorities agree with were found in the book of Genesis. The analogy does not work, because the statement that 17 is a prime number is everything but political. It's not the concept of prime numbers that is political, its the assumption that we must agree that they are important to understanding consciousness. usually scientists agree with is political. I would be more sympathetic with in spite of what scientists/authorities agree with. But if you want start a party on the idea that 17 is not prime, you are free to make it political. You're straw manning me. I don't see that anything that I have said has to do with the content of arithmetic statements, only that the popularity of arithmetic among scientists is no reason to insist that is where we must begin in an investigation of consciousness. You will need propaganda, torture, terror, and many things like that to keep power, but then why not, we are used to this. Really laying on thick there. It doesn't bode well for the argument if any hint of a peek behind the curtain of arithmetic supremacy brings an evocation of cataclysmic consequences. My point was only that if you want to communicate something to others, you have to adopt a language they understand, and start your theory from statement on which they can agree for the sake of the argument or not (that's private for the others). I don't have a problem with that principle in general, but in this case, you are asking me to begin the conversation about insects by blanketing the garden with insecticide. You aren't factoring in the possibility that the framing of the discussion itself is a key component of what can be discussed. Once we agree to enter the silk flower greenhouse of mathematics, we have already lost the living meadow. If not, all what you do is already a sort of propaganda. I'm afraid. I'm afraid that is more projection than you will admit. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno Craig 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-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. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Craig, Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime. In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as 17 are not necessary for reality to compute the universe. I suspect what reality does is more 1:1 comparisons. E.g. when reality makes a computation to conserve and redistribute particle properties among the outgoing particles of a particle interaction, it doesn't need to count up 17 of anything, it just has to know they are all distributed which it can do with simple 1;1 comparisons. It can do that by 1:1 comparisons, not by any notion of numbers such as 1, 2, or 17 much less any notion of primes. I suspect that in this regard Bruno may have more insight, but superficially I agree with you. Just as an abacus can be used to perform H-Math functions, on a physical level, all that is happening is that beads are sliding to one side or another (R-Math?). I consider H-Math not to be limited to humans, but more along the lines of a Bruno-Platonic set of all possible groupings of quantitative patterns. As enormous as that UD is, it is still, in my view, only a language of theoretical relations, not a concrete presence in the universe. What I see with comp is that, if human quality of consciousness were a calendar, comp takes the R-Math of January and the H-Math of December and assumes that February through November will be filled in automatically. What I see instead is that February through November cannot be substituted with low level 1:1 comparisons or high level eternal schemas, but instead must be developed in real time through real experiences. There can be no skipping experiences, so that even a fish does not have the experience of a fish if it does not arise from a context of inheriting lifetimes from invertebrate ancestors. I suspect that these experiences are not available in any structures to be simulated or modeled. Craig Ordinal and cardinal number, and all their properties such as odd, even or prime are thus characteristic of human H-math, not of the actual R-math of reality that actually computes the current state of the universe, at least so far as I can see. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Locally. But to do a scientific (modest and sharbale) theory, we need to start from 3p agreement, and usually scientists agree with statements like 17 is prime, but not on sense, quasi-veridical, entanglement, etc. I agree that it is an important political consideration, but I don't think it is a scientific consideration. At one time the starting point statements that authorities agree with were found in the book of Genesis. The analogy does not work, because the statement that 17 is a prime number is everything but political. But if you want start a party on the idea that 17 is not prime, you are free to make it political. You will need propaganda, torture, terror, and many things like that to keep power, but then why not, we are used to this. My point was only that if you want to communicate something to others, you have to adopt a language they understand, and start your theory from statement on which they can agree for the sake of the argument or not (that's private for the others). If not, all what you do is already a sort of propaganda. I'm afraid. Bruno Craig Bruno Craig 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-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. 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
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
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
I think that the opposite of everything that you are saying makes more sense.: On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:07:07 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. The universe, and everything in it, consists of no information, but only experiences which are informed through aesthetic acquaintance. Information consists of no elemental structures at all, but rather is distributed metaphorically in gaps between experiences using a variety quantitative shortcuts. 2. Thus everything in the universe is made up of numbers and only numbers. Thus nothing in the universe is made up of numbers, which is why we have developed mathematics to enumerate what has no number itself. 3. All the things in the universe are just various arrangements and relationships between these numbers. Nothing in the universe is merely an arrangement or relationship between 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. There are no processes in the universe which are only computations. Nothing in the universe depends on a continuous computation and nothing that interacts can be purely a program. 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. Logico-mathematical rules are abstracted from approximation and insensitivity, and are appropriate only for controlling forms and functions from the outside in. 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 reality of programs is simple logical elements operating on each other with no profoundly meaningful application to the actual presence of the universe or ourselves. 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. The result is that the concepts we call number and information consist entirely of the same type of reductive expectations, a fact which can be verified by direct subjective participation. 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. Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and supporting our survival. Craig 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.
