Liz,
The computational theory I propose has nothing to do with cellular
automata. Cellular automata is little more than a simple childish game. I
played around with them myself back in the 1960's and found little of
interest. All the hype and theorizing around them is misguided.
What they
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 January 2014 17:44, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
CY Compact manifolds are particles of 6d space that precipitate out of 3D
space.
Each particle is about 1000 Planck lengths in diameter.
OK. That sounds
Telmo,
I don't know what the universal dovetailer is...
Again, for the nth time, my theory has nothing to do with comp or UD.
It's a completely different theory. Just go by what I say and don't assume
any similarities. It's possible there are some but I'll leave that up to
others...
Edgar
Liz,
How many times do I have to say it before it's clear? Everything in my
model consists of pure abstract computational information running in the
real actuality and presence (the logical space) of reality.
There is NO actual physicality whatsoever. As I've said repeatedly,
physicality, the
2014/1/13 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Liz,
How many times do I have to say it before it's clear? Everything in my
model consists of pure abstract computational information running in the
real actuality and presence (the logical space) of reality.
There is NO actual physicality
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual reality
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental simulation
of its external reality environment. This whole system, external world
Bruno,
You ask where does mind come from? Obviously it arises via evolution like
all biological structures. There should be no question about that. Is it
some sort of mystery in your 'comp'?
And I'm using computable and computations in the STANDARD sense it's
used in computer science, as the
Bruno,
Yes, some things ARE obvious. For example the fact that we exist. Isn't
that obvious? :-)
But I agree we must be careful not be led astray with unfounded
'interpretations' of the obvious. The wise man properly discerns what is
clearly obvious (eg. that we exist, and we exist in a
Bruno,
You first assume all mathematics somehow exists 'out there' independent of
humans. If that were true and actual reality consisted of all math sitting
there in some static state, then you might be correct, but this is an
enormous unwarranted assumption with no empirical evidence.
The
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is
NON-dimensional. The computations compute Clock time which IS dimensional.
Edgar
On Friday, January 10, 2014 5:00:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science. Computer
programs compute results. Reality computes the current state of the
universe. It's very simple, straightforward and standard usage.
See my other post on the same topic for more detail.
Edgar
On Friday,
This is an awful question to ask, and inappropriate too, but I will ask. I
wonder what good it does, the pitiful human specie, knowing that there's
hyper-multiverses? It's breath taking of course, but beyond this, does it help
the human condition? Unless we can Tweet, Proxima Centauri, or the
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an unreachable
non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is clearly understood it is
obvious that nothing actual can be infinite. There is no getting around
this. Nothing real can be infinite
Stephen,
My computational space is not a physical dimensional space. It's a logical
information space. There are no metrics, topology, or parameters. These are
all properties of dimensional spaces. Dimensional spaces are part of the
computational results that emerge FROM computations in
Hi Edgar,
I don't know what the universal dovetailer is...
Not to worry, I'm sure not a lot of people do outside of this mailing list... :)
Independently of your own theory, it's an interesting concept. Bruno
might explain better, but it is basically an algorithm that executes
all conceivable
Telmo,
Thanks for the explanation, though it doesn't seem very applicable to
actual reality...
I would be very interested in where one can submit papers without an
academic affiliation if you could provide names or links. Have you
submitted to any?
Best,
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science. Computer
programs compute results.
Computers compute results. Computer programs describe how computers
compute results. This is all circular and nothing
Dear Edgar,
Several of us do not understand what you mean by pure abstract
computational information or real actuality and thus cannot evaluate
your claims. It would be helpful if you proposed some semi-formal
definitions or pointed to similar discussion by other authors. It seems to
me that
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Telmo,
Thanks for the explanation, though it doesn't seem very applicable to actual
reality...
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
I would be very interested in where one can
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:02:07 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 13 January 2014 02:35, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference seems
like a straight line?
That depends on who is viewing it and where from,
On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:17:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 1/10/2014 10:49 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
As you've explained it above your theory makes a rock just as conscious
as a brain. I'm
sure you must have a more
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual
reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Edgar,
How do you know reality is really as small and limited as you think it
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand it.
Just take the pure information content of everything that exists out of the
'things'. You have pure information. Now assume that information is
continually evolving to compute the current state of reality.
Jason,
Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite. See
my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real and
actual can be infinite
We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate
physics somewhere only then you can ask me
Hi Bruno,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to follow you
here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one of these days but
Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an unreachable
non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is clearly understood it is
obvious that nothing actual
Edgar,
The most well known is the arxiv. It is run out of cornell
university. Their website is arxiv.org
Jason
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Telmo,
Thanks for the explanation, though it doesn't seem very applicable
to actual reality...
I would
You would be surprised how similar what you say below is to the
conclusions of the UDA.
Jason
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
My computational space is not a physical dimensional space. It's a
logical information space. There are no metrics,
Hi Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual reality
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your
Terren,
No, it's not a contradiction. Because present time just is and always has
been without anything happening prior to the big bang. Only when clock time
began to be computed as happening originated at the big bang was there a
measure of time, or rather a time that could be measured by
Jason,
You'd have a snowball's chance in hell in publishing a paper there withOUT
academic affiliation...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:33:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
Edgar,
The most well known is the arxiv. It is run out of cornell university.
Their website is arxiv.org
Jason
Dear Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
it.
Good point! I tend to have a 5 bin system that I use to categorize
ontological theories: Material monism, Ideal
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
On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an
unreachable non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is
clearly understood it is obvious that nothing actual can be
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. 99.99% of the time they
are
On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You'd have a snowball's chance in hell in publishing a paper there
withOUT academic affiliation...
I've published there without any academic affiliation.
Jason
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:33:42
Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia
If what you're positing is a fundamental computational reality, then
there's
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia
You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in my
theory.
There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present moment
P-time.
Jason,
We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe where
addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old. Not quite old enough
to get to infinity! This applies all the types of infinity you mention.
The universe (extended quantum vacuum) has always existed but there
Stephen,
I didn't really expect you to buy my book, but a lot of other people are
And I agree with you most people who tell you how to experience reality are
scam artists.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
how to directly
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't
accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The
'Matrix' scenario that you can't distinguish between all possible
Edgar,
On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You ask where does mind come from? Obviously it arises via evolution
like all biological structures.
Not only that is not obvious, but this might be false. It might be
locally true for the human mind differentiation, but the
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
On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Yes, some things ARE obvious. For example the fact that we exist.
Isn't that obvious? :-)
Who we ? The universal numbers?
Your consciousness here-and-now is, for you, obvious. I grant that.
Nothing more.
I bet on this, and believe
On Jan 13, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not a contradiction. Because present time just is and always has
been without anything happening prior to the big bang. Only when clock time
began to be computed as happening originated at the big bang
2014/1/13 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't
accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The
'Matrix' scenario that
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which
is NON-dimensional.
Sorry, but I don't understand.
To discuss on this, I need to know what you
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science.
Computer programs compute results. Reality computes the current
state of the universe.
So reality is a computer program? That seems like digital physics
thesis.
On 1/13/2014 7:17 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:17:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 1/10/2014 10:49 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
As you've explained it above your theory makes a rock just as
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition
to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is
a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in
Edgar,
A simulation can be utterly precise and impossible to distinguish from
sensory data, in principle. You seem to be ignoring that by your own theory
it is possible to simulate the logic of external reality precisely, as that
is what you are positing happens at a fundamental level.
I am
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
Hi,
Someone wrote, not sure if it was Terren or Bruno:
...
from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and will follow
the path with the greater measure.
This looks like some form of a self-selection!? It essence, any observer
having a 1p means that it will always exist
On 14 January 2014 01:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
The computational theory I propose has nothing to do with cellular
automata. Cellular automata is little more than a simple childish game. I
played around with them myself back in the 1960's and found little of
interest.
On 14 January 2014 01:04, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 January 2014 17:44, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
CY Compact manifolds are particles of 6d space that precipitate out of
3D space.
Each
On 1/13/2014 9:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You'd have a snowball's chance in hell in publishing a paper there withOUT academic
affiliation...
Edgar
Yeah, arXiv was once pretty open but it got so many papers it's started to require a
'sponsor' to vouch for new posters. Which is not
On 14 January 2014 01:44, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual reality
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
So you don't think there is any such thing as arithmetical realism. OK.
Every
On 14 January 2014 02:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
You first assume all mathematics somehow exists 'out there' independent of
humans. If that were true and actual reality consisted of all math sitting
there in some static state, then you might be correct, but this is an
On 14 January 2014 02:17, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is
NON-dimensional. The computations compute Clock time which IS dimensional.
What
Og, please tell me where can I download Max's book, I'd like to do the same.
On 14 January 2014 02:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
This is an awful question to ask, and inappropriate too, but I will ask. I
wonder what good it does, the pitiful human specie, knowing that there's
On 14 January 2014 02:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To answer your questions.
Reality must be finite. When the definition of infinity as an unreachable
non-terminable PROCESS (keep adding 1 forever) is clearly understood it is
obvious that nothing actual can be
On 14 January 2014 02:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
My computational space is not a physical dimensional space. It's a logical
information space. There are no metrics, topology, or parameters. These are
all properties of dimensional spaces. Dimensional spaces are part
On 1/13/2014 10:16 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation is accurate or
not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't accurately model the logic of
external reality you wouldn't be here.
That's poor logic
On 14 January 2014 04:31, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
it.
LOL!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
Matti Pitkannen's VIXRA, an alternative to ARXIV
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 3:42 pm
Subject: Re: A Theory of Consciousness
On 1/13/2014 9:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia: Reification (also known
as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when
an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it
On 14 January 2014 08:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is
NON-dimensional.
Sorry, but I
On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia:
Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced
concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when
an
Oops typo. That should read
Edgar thinks that people not understanding his theory is their fault. He
hasn't worked out the simple fact that if he can't communicate it properly,
that is his problem. He probably never will.
On 14 January 2014 10:27, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:49:17 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own
merits... Don't shoehorn!
FWIW, that's all well and good for mathematical and other formal theories.
You've been insistent on not formalizing your
On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories into
standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be
prepared for some
On 14 January 2014 04:31, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
It's not 'ideal monism'. Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand
it.
Just take the pure information content of everything that exists out of
the 'things'. You have pure information. Now assume that
Dear Gabe,
Hear Hear!
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:49:17 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own
merits... Don't shoehorn!
FWIW, that's all
On 1/13/2014 11:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all
theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is a well
On 1/13/2014 1:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn’t this just the reification fallacy? From Wikipedia: Reification
(also known
as concretism, or the
A set whose proper subsets are isomorphic to the set.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
How do you define infinity differently than an unreachable process?
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:08:52 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014
On 14 January 2014 11:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
How do you define infinity differently than an unreachable process?
Countable infinity can be defined as the number of members in the set of
all the integers.
Uncountable infinity can be defined as the number of members
On 14 January 2014 11:40, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
A set whose proper subsets are isomorphic to the set.
Very nice definition, I knew that one (honest!) having read a book by Rudy
Rucker on the subject, but had forgotten it. This is the property nicely
illustrated by
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a
'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves
offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories
of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair?
The
Dear Flyer,
You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the
Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful
to the discussion?
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:44:47 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Haha! Ya Liz, I think your
Liz, et al,
The so called 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is obvious in a
universe where reality math actually computes reality. That couldn't be any
simpler or clearer.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:06:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 11:29, meekerdb
Dear LizR,
What would happen is mathematics did not amazingly match up with the
patterns of phenomena of the physical world? Think about it. We expect a
model of a system to match that system as best possible, so what is magical
about symbolic representational systems that obey rules?
I
On 14 January 2014 12:42, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered
a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has
themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually
offering
On 14 January 2014 12:56, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz, et al,
The so called 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' is obvious in a
universe where reality math actually computes reality. That couldn't be any
simpler or clearer.
It's all obvious. Nothing could be clearer.
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to consider
not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation
but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a
simulated world is entirely convincing in the short term it still MUST
On 14 January 2014 13:04, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
What would happen is mathematics did not amazingly match up with the
patterns of phenomena of the physical world? Think about it. We expect a
model of a system to match that system as best possible, so
Brent,
Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement. It's been on my 'to do list'
and posting here is helping to clarify the presentation of some of my ideas
towards that end.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 3:41:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/13/2014 9:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
On 14 January 2014 12:52, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Dear Flyer,
You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the
Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful
to the discussion?
He just did. He pointed out a number of ways
Liz,
That doesn't follow. Don't you understand basic logical forms?
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
On 14 January 2014 13:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
That doesn't follow. Don't you understand basic logical forms?
It was as logical as your argument.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
Liz,
If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
by the qualia you mention (which are also covered extensively in my book).
I
On 14 January 2014 13:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:12 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2014 13:04, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
What would happen is mathematics did not amazingly match
On 14 January 2014 13:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
by the
On 1/13/2014 3:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 11:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 1:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:54 AM,
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
On 14 January 2014 13:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 3:06 PM, LizR wrote:
Quite possibly, of course! But in my humble opinion, Max Tegmark and
Bruno and Eugene Wigner (and Galileo, Gauss, Einstein etc) do have a point,
that maths does seem to kick back and to be
Liz,
That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the time
to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness to
criticize...
Anyway thanks for letting us know you don't have any theory of reality
yourself in spite of your incessant proclamations as
On 14 January 2014 13:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
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
On 14 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the
time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness
to criticize...
Yes of course, I couldn't possibly have any valid
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 January 2014 01:04, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 January 2014 17:44, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz,
CY Compact manifolds
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
