Re: Tegmark's New Book

gent scientists wildly MISinterpreting their data... Edgar On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:14:29 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/16/2014 4:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > I asked previously if any of you math whizzes could give me the equation > to calculate the radius of the univer

Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

All, This has nothing to do with consciousness, but it may have something to do with the origin of free will. Edgar Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousnessJanuary 16, 2014 *[+]*

Re: Tegmark's New Book

onstruction or basic mechanism that one would use > to measure P-time? > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > Yes, of course p-time is observable. The present moment of p-time is the > present moment we all observe our en

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > Is P-time observable? > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > PS: I agree with the rest of what you are saying here but again you are > talking about clock time, dimensional spa

Re: Tegmark's New Book

efers to all the individually experienced present moments being the one and the same common universal present moment. After all the presence of reality is a single universal phenomenon that all observers partake in, exist in and thus all experience. Edgar On Thursday, January 16, 2

Re: Tegmark's New Book

pervolume (specifically the local neighborhood or "ball" of every point > in the space-time manifold), there is no way of globally ordering the > "present moments" that would be said to exist at each point. > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Edg

Re: Tegmark's New Book

cannot be defined *in* a infinitesimal space-time > hypervolume (specifically the local neighborhood or "ball" of every point > in the space-time manifold), there is no way of globally ordering the > "present moments" that would be said to exist at each point. > >

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

Brent, No, that's incorrect. No winning number needs to be drawn in the lottery. In fact there are no winners fairly often. That's why the jackpot keeps increasing Lotteries are not won by choosing among player submitted numbers, they are drawn at random from all possible numbers within th

Re: Tegmark's New Book

e accelerating than someone at rest? > > Jason > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:09 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" > > wrote: > > Brent, > > Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDUAL > observer has his OWN present moment time. You are trying

Re: Tegmark's New Book

mmon. It fact it argues the opposite: observers cannot share their > present moments! THus your claims fall apart > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Brent, > > Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDU

Re: Tegmark's New Book

rent wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > Both DO follow if you understand the argument. Why do you think they > don't follow? > > > Well the first one is true, if you take time to mean a global coordinate > time. But then it&

Re: Tegmark's New Book

King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > > What mouth? It is only the relations between numbers! > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > It's amazing how much your mouth has to move to tell me it's not moving! &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

t greeks figured that out already. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > If time doesn't move then nothing moves. > > Edgar > > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:48:02 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

f Edgar's theory to figure it out. :-) Edgar On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:47:41 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes clear. It

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Stephen, Bruno and I agree on this one, our usually imagined space is completely a construction of our minds. That is fundamental to my theory. I explain in detail how it happens in my new topic post "Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum computations" if anyone cares to read it...

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

roups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational > reality > > > > On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Brent, Sure. So what? That's not inconsistent with everything being at one and only one point of time as time continually moves. That is in fact what proves that time moves. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:40:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 5:02 PM, LizR wrote: > > Secon

Re: Tegmark's New Book

the words but it's entirely obvious and undeniable. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:35:38 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 4:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Stephen, > > If time doesn't move then nothing moves. > > > Moving means being dif

Re: Tegmark's New Book

t; > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > If time doesn't move then nothing moves. > > Edgar > > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:48:02 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > Time

Re: Tegmark's New Book

f the hands. That is not > "motion", it is something else. Time does not move. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > "Time does not move"??? Even your clock knows better than that! And you > think my

Re: Tegmark's New Book

that your libraries of > responses are failing to achieve the predicted response. Get new ones. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes clear. It just > so happens that l

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

Liz, Boy, talk about alternate realities! You are making a good case for one! :-) Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:31:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 13:14, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> So you admit you criticized me for st

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Brent, Both DO follow if you understand the argument. Why do you think they don't follow? Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:27:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > Bravo! Someone actually registered some of

Re: Tegmark's New Book

doesn't cut it... Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:27:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would >> state them slightly different

Re: Tegmark's New Book

lly commute. Any time a > change in the velocity occurs for an observer, its inertial frame is > changes and never again will their clocks completely agree. There may be a > momentary congruence of the numbers/readings of the respective clock, but > the twins will never again have th

Re: Tegmark's New Book

he books and work the math to learn > and understand what it means. Books for laymen are only good for wetting > one's appetites for the real thing. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Brent, > > Bravo! Someone actually registe

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

eason why they agreed instead of demanding I produce reasons for a belief you apparently already share? I think most people would consider that fairly strange Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:24:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 12:19, Edgar L. Owen >w

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Brent, Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would state them slightly differently. The argument in question, that everyone except Brent seems to have missed, is simple. SR requires that everything moves at the speed of light through spacetime. This is NOT just "a

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Quentin, It is not "arrogant" or "trollish" to ask someone to demonstrate knowledge of an argument he claims is invalid. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:32:45 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen > > > Stephen

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:28:33 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen > > >> Liz, >> >> Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also claimed it was invalid but >> he couldn't tell us what the argument is that he claims

Re: Tegmark's New Book

d the linked references. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > That's not my argument. Where are you coming up with that stuff? > > Edgar > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:03:45 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul Kin

Re: Tegmark's New Book

all observers across the universe*. > > We do experience gravity, thus the association of a single > external computational space to the space-time manifold is not allowed. > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:59 PM, LizR >wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 12:05, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> Apparently you lost context. >> > > Yes of course, that must be what happened. Fortunately you haven't lost > the ability to make dorkish insults. > > >> I

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Brent, OK, I just reposted it again under the original topic heading. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:50:00 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > > > You asked me how I explained the spin entanglement paradox day

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a measurement event. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

oes not allow the appearances of randomness to > be explained away by the limitations of individual observers. QM randomness > comes from the algebraic relationships between observables (entanglement) > and cannot be "explained" away by anything that can be attributed to > indivi

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

Liz, Apparently you lost context. I'm talking about you believing in a soul or consciousness separate from a physical body... Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:00:34 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 11:39, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Liz, No Liz, that's not it. That's a different argument. Obviously you don't know it Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:59:21 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> Do you know wha

Re: Tegmark's New Book

od evidence tells us that it is, of any > thing like a global present moment. > > "That dog don't hunt!" > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:42 PM, LizR >wrote: > >> On 16 January 2014 07:54, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: >> >>> Quentin, >>>

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent, Correct. I actually spell it out and make it pretty clear in the advert what I mean by a non-feminist. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:45:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote: > > Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks *specifically* for a

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Liz, Of course it does. Do you know what my argument to demonstrate that is? If not you are just stating an unsubstantiated opinion... Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:42:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 07:54, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Quentin, &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Liz, Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also claimed it was invalid but he couldn't tell us what the argument is that he claims is invalid. Do you know? Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:41:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 07:26, Edgar L. Owen >wro

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, I've never called anyone on this list "stupid", not a single time. You claim I have "spent the last week or so calling everyone stupid". That is simply not true so one wonders why you would say it? Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:57:53 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 20

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

ld be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in > discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to > contact me at edga...@att.net . " > > And you said i didn't read things... > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UT

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

Liz, Wow, do we have some really superstitious members here! I wouldn't have expected that on a science list. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:14:24 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, (and Dan) >> >&g

Re: Tegmark's New Book

ic for the explanation. It explains the origin of quantum randomness in fair detail. Let me know if you read it and we can discuss it Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:18:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 4:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Bruno, > > No, yo

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > I have to agree I don't

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Quentin, You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly comment on whether it is valid or not Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:00:15 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen > > > Quentin, > &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

s not sufficient Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen > > > Jason, > > 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time > > > You did not > > > (by requiring a mov

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

Dan, First, thanks for the apology which I gratefully accept. However you have your facts completely wrong. It was NOT ME that posted a link to my personal blog, not a single one. It was Terren that did that as I recall, but it most certainly was NOT ME. I did post a SINGLE link to my company

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" > > wrote: > > Bruno, > > Thanks for the correction. > > But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in > 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anythin

Re: Tegmark's New Book

s circular than my fundamental axiom, and considerably less convincing If that is not your fundamental axiom then what is? Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Bruno, > > Of co

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

aphy etc... > > Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent > of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to > denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer > street cred, uhm credible,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

wrote: > > > On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Bruno, > > Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful. > > > Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful. > > > > The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, > > >

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

ar in such a low fashion. > > "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds > discuss people." > -- Eleanor Roosevelt > > > > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> > >> Freq, > >>

Re: Tegmark's New Book

at is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom to me Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

spective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

5, 2014 2:48:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an > ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr. > High School? &

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

erested in > discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to > contact me at edga...@att.net . " > > And you said i didn't read things... > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Freq, >> &

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >> >> OK. >> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> Freq, >>> >&g

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent, I didn't say that... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:11:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Freq, > > Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? > Note I said "that could re

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

LIz, Good one! Thanks for the chuckles! Best, Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:01:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

- getting their heads around intelligent criticism. > > And they keep banging on about how they have a unique insight into the > nature of the universe... > > > On 15 January 2014 14:42, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> Thanks for confirming what I'

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

1972 wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one >> by one". When there are let me know and I'll check them

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

, just without the modern twist Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:47:16 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we >> are living

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

- but not simulated human beings :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> John, >> >> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we >> appear to li

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this >> question... >> >> Actually to answer your question properly you hav

Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

Liz, That is the explanation Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> All, >> >> My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', >>

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:35:09 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: >

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

C-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some > single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a > continuous non-linear spectrum

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

but nobody even commented on it. It's one of the main topics of my theory, I devote all of Part III of my book to it, but apparently it didn't even register with anyone... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:27:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wr

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

just sci fi and not the proper subject of science... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:46:58 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > > I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", I clearly stated ther

Re: Tegmark's New Book

n: Reality IS a computational MACHINE in the general sense of machine. Thus of course consistency applies to it. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Jason, > > > > A good ques

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

ns will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:53:23 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Liz, > > Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've > programmed a number of them myself. &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

agine a mass-energy content in one cell dilating it. That automatically produces a curvature in the rubber sheet around that mass-energy consistent with the effects of space curvature in GR. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:52:24 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 1

Re: Tegmark's New Book

x27;s axioms to bring it in line with reality math. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:47:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Jason, > > A good question, that's why I've already li

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

tion of those actual structures. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > > > For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know anything. > They a

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

only has to explain why what does exist is what ACTUALLY exists. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:05:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are &

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

he reasons cosmologists assume their must be multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after all. Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you.. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Ow

Re: Tegmark's New Book

ng for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's > theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml, > there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book. > > Terren > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owe

Why our fine tuning and not some other?

All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' The second fundamental question is, 'Why does what actually exists exist instead of something else?' Why is our univers

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Re: Tegmark's New Book

very restricted to those actually possible in the Standard Model... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:29:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > William, > > > > No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've programmed a number of them myself. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:28:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> Tha

Re: Tegmark's New Book

. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:22:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> The "elements of the set" are the information encoding the current state >> of the universe and how it is evolvin

Re: Tegmark's New Book

ook as true at the start which led to your other deductions? > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in >> considerable

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz, That's not "artificial intelligence". Completely different concept... Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:00:09 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> Come on Jason, the whole notion of &

Re: Tegmark's New Book

me around mass-energy. Visualize this as a GR rubber sheet model in which the depression around a mass is caused by a dilation of the grid cells of the surrounding rubber sheet and you'll see how this works. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:29:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

as fundamental to the processing of > reality are Turing complete, then such a move is possible, for the sake of > argument. > > Terren > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> There is no FTL because th

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

cussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know things"? Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:21:46 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 6:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, > > > > What makes some computations real is that they are computing

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

things for which there is no evidence whatsoever? Get real! I'll let you spend your time constructing theories to explain what there is no evidence for if you like. I have better things to do... Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 6:03

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

> > I noticed you did not answer my question, which tells me you do not have > an answer. > > T > > The point > On Jan 13, 2014 7:10 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > > wrote: > >> Terren, >> >> No, it's not that simple as I thought I had exp

Re: Tegmark's New Book

reading Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:13:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered >>

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:09:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 5:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Liz, > > > > There is no FTL because this is not a physical dimensional space, it's a > computational > > space. The notion of 'together

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

guish fiction from reality? Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:01:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 5:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jason, > > Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is > adolescent fantasy. Is there some real

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

pposite. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Terren, > > > > No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to > consider not just > > what is happening

Re: Tegmark's New Book

y those cycles. Only a separate Present moment P-time can provide processor cycles that clock time can be computed within. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:36:31 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 14:15, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> Good

Re: Tegmark's New Book

tate of re-computation in every processor cycle. What exists is the active evolution of all information, not sequential static data states one after the other. Edgar Edgar Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:54:26 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 13:40, Edgar L. Owen >

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

ant proclamations as to what reality must be or is not. :-) Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:39:11 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 13:23, Edgar L. Owen >wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

elves, albeit in > very technical terms that are hard to comprehend at first. I find many of > his ideas very useful and have even come to agree with some of them. > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Stephen, > > PS: In spite of your

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >