made that distinction clear but apparently it didn't register...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 3:55:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 07:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
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 edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Stephen,
PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of 'Realization'
deals
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 edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
essentials of reality you cannot
-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 edga...@att.net
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 edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
Good question which I've given a lot
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 in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but the
whole context
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 person living inside the game? If so
he
, 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' is computational interaction rather than
dimensional
co-location
:13:05 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered
a 'formal theory'.
A first (and great) step would be just to explain in clear normal language
The point
On Jan 13, 2014 7:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
wrote:
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
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 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent
,
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 real and
actual processes
of reality. They are actually running
that, that you can't insert dummy operations, and so forth. But so long as
the computations you are positing 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 edga
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:
On 1/13/2014 6:14 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Aren't you
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 edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Jason,
Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game
?
Thanks,
Jason
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in
considerable detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon' I've
used is the single neologism 'ontological
, January 13, 2014 10:22:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Brent,
The elements of the set are the information encoding the current state
of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that
may be needs
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 edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
That's not artificial
Stephen,
I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything that
exists. One must be careful to distinguish between actual external reality,
of which there is only one, and individual 'realities' which vary widely
across individuals and species, and which are all individual
:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Terren,
All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of
whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your question which
is why I didn't answer before...
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 2:42
.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:04:39 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Stephen,
I define 'Reality' in my book on the subject very simply as everything
that exists.
I denote
that had the proper mental
simulation of its world, based on its own sensory apparatus, with the
complex feedback systems necessary, that robot would EXperience as well?
Terren
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Terren,
I don't find
,
Check out this article by S. Wolfram:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/academic/undecidability-intractability-theoretical-physics.pdf
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Stephen,
Please see my proximate answer to Terren a little
of the external information reality.
Actual fundamental external reality is computationally evolving information
in OE only.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 1:06:49 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
Ok, I'll bite :)
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga
biological brain at some level.
If so, Bruno's UDA proves that the physical world as we experience it is
not computable.
Terren
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Terren,
First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories
, regardless of what your theory is. It comes across as
dogmatic or religious... is that your intent?
Terren
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Terren,
Receiving a prosthetic brain is a (probably insurmountable) technical
problem. There could
an imprecise definition which isn't really germane here.
As you point out everybody's thoughts and states of mind are always
changing
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen edga
with the exact neural circuitry and neural states then I suppose
'I' would still think I was me. I don't see why not.
So what's the point? I forgot what it was...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L
of reality.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:12:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz and Terren,
I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on it.
After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Stephen,
There is no single observer that can take in all events I never
said that and don't believe it.
However there has to be a single universal processor cycling for a
computational universe to work. That single universal processor cycle
...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:01, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
There is no single observer that can take in all events I never
said that and don't believe it.
However there has to be a single universal processor cycling for a
computational universe to work
is
conclusive proof.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What
Liz,
Your comp is obviously not my comp. Don't tell me what my comp does or
doesn't do...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:38:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One
to all the various times that occur in the
computed reality. The question is, what is *that *time? (whatever it
should be called)
On 10 January 2014 15:48, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
Obviously clock time is the time that clocks measure. What else would
Brent,
That seems to assume a prior existence of quantum correlations in a
non-computational universe. Anyway it's just another unproven speculative
theory. Why post it as if it proves something?
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:35:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/9/2014 5:15 PM, Edgar L
, 2014 9:56:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
No you spent them telling me what it *does*. I'd like to know what it
*is.*
On 10 January 2014 15:54, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Common Liz, I just spent the last number of posts telling you and Stephen
what it is... Don't make me
try a definition of computation:
Any transformation of information.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Stephen,
There is NO such requirement. See my response to Liz..
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:45:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
can repeat my original point:
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume a
computational universe in the first place you
All,
As I explain in my book on Reality, entropy states are not fundamental, as
often assumed, because they depend on the spatial mix of prevailing forces.
For example the maximum entropy state will be completely different in a
positive gravitation universe than it would be in a negative
Telmo,
Thanks for the link but see my new topic A theory of consciousness of a
few days ago which no one has even commented on and which is much more
reasonable and explanatory.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
In case you haven't seen it...
and beyond
John Mikes
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Terren,
All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of
whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your question which
is why I didn't answer before
such items and when I post disbelief that is something I usually can
support from my past experience.
Have a good 2014 and beyond
John Mikes
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Terren,
All human babies are automatically consciousness
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times.
The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor
explained by relativity It's a basic but totally unexplained
assumption
January 2014 12:45, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
Yes, of course you are correct. They do it all the time but in the
present moment rather than any clock time simultaneity. Without a present
moment when do they meet up and compare? Certainly not in their individual
on page 2 of his paper):
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
It would avoid a lot of confusion I think, because so far we seem to be
talking past each other over what basic words mean.
Jason
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript
by their differing
clocks.
When are they together Brent? Obviously in a present moment which is a kind
of time that clearly is not the same as clock time.
Edgar
On Monday, January 6, 2014 12:18:16 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/5/2014 12:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
No, the present moment
Jason,
What clock measures your coordinate time? Apparently none. It's beginning
to sound just like another name for Present time.
What's the difference?
Edgar
On Monday, January 6, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript
Resch wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
wrote:
Jason,
PS: And don't tell me the twins meeting with different clock times in
the same present moment is an event as if that explained something.
I use that word in the usual relatavistic
Bruno,
You say of the present moment Yes, it's not a clock time. I agree, then
what is the present moment if it isn't a clock time?
Edgar
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:07:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jan 2014, at 19:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
If you don't agree with my
for a
computational universe to work. Otherwise nothing would even happen
Edgar
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:16:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jan 2014, at 21:06, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason
that true.
Best,
Edgar
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
wrote:
Jason,
PPS: More questions about your theory of block time.
1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:08:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/5/2014 4:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said they ARE at the
same present place when their clocks don't agree.
Yes. So why don't you recognize that present place
:29 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 6 January 2014 10:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
What is explained quite well by relativity is the differing clock times.
The fact they differ in the same present moment is not even recognized nor
explained by relativity It's
is an absolute
permanent clock time effect that all observers agree upon WHEN there is no
relative motion.
That should clarify everything but I fear it won't
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:23:42 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga
at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I
like that!
Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-)
I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here.
First though there are two ways
of
events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference
frames: True or False?
3. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of
events at the same point in space: True or False?
-Gabe
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:23:57 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote
Liz,
I'm not going to give Yes/No questions to ill formulated questions.
Have you stopped beating your dog?
:-)
See my answers to these questions (in my own words) in my response to Gabe
who asked them
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 5:18:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Our first topic is
Pierz,
It may not be physics by your definition but both the Present moment and
Consciousness are certainly part of reality, in fact they are basic aspects
of reality.
Reality subsumes physics, if you want to define physics as just what is
mathematically describable.
Not all of reality is
and their clock times are
not simultaneous.
This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your
answer...
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason
, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your
theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all our
actions within
?
Edgar
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is your
theory of this present moment we all experience our existence
is true, and there is no free will, are you any more
than a robot zombie?
Awaiting your answers with interest...
Edgar
On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
If you don't agree with my
Liz,
The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature
works...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now,
because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...
Why does
Liz,
This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many
female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to
mind.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
Lliz, Brent and Jason,
Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. It is true the
effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have
suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or
:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Lliz, Brent and Jason,
Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins.
In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats
Jason,
Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
it is.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga
Gabriel,
See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this works
and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time.
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
(I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
The P-time
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames
of
:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not
just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and
neutrons
of the matter of their hands which don't travel at the speed of light
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Hi Jason,
No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it
seems.
First the twins do NOT have the same (x,y,z,t
at common events in the SAME computational reality.)
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the
theory I
.
Jason
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Hi Jason,
No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it
seems.
First the twins do NOT have the same (x,y,z,t
is NOT a hidden variable theory. There are
no hidden variables at all in my explanation. Please, respectfully, reread
it and see there are none...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:55:50 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
, January 2, 2014 1:45:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
Taking your points in order.
No contradiction. Sam and Pam do experience 10 and 6 years of clock time
respectively, but it's all experienced in a common
Liz,
I answered Jason directly. See that post.
There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present
moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are
confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for
one more approach that
Brent,
No, they aren't hidden variables. Not at all. Read my new topic post
Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events for the
detailed explanation.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 3:16:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/2/2014 8:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
The spin
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
I answered Jason directly. See that post.
By not answering, yes
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:21:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 3 January 2014 10:17, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
No we won't. I followed his argument, and I want an answer too. Funny
thing about science, it doesn't
the logical reasoning...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Liz,
We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know
, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's
consistent with SR.
Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time
the incompatibility of these views...
Jason
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present
moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse
Hi Liz,
The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear
and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly
Jason,
Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book on
Reality here. If anyone is interested I can elaborate.
To understand consciousness we first must clearly distinguish between
consciousness ITSELF and the contents of consciousness that become
conscious by
for spatially separated observers as outlined in my
previous posts.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Hi Liz,
The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007
.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own
20 Questions game?
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
to the self-manifesting nature
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga
. The
only way they can confirm their clock times are different is by comparing
them in the same Present time moment.
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:42:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
As I've
Resch jason...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...
So your
contents.
This is quite clear to anyone who has experienced it
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 January 2014 04:09, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
All,
I'll present a brief overview of my theory of consciousness from my book
PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
All,
All,
Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present
moment when we are together we need to take the next step and establish
that we also share
Stephen, Jason, Liz,
The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time.
Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the
computations compute clock time.
The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything.
The fact that
13:02, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
javascript:wrote:
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer,
Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious
dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake!
Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just
All,
In response to the discussion of the possibility of a Final Theory I'm
starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
separate issue from previous discussions.
1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we
know external reality
John, and Liz,
Yes John is correct here. Without a current academic affiliation it's well
nigh impossible to be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal...
Sad but true...
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 4:38:40 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
Dear Liz,
as a former ed-in-chief of a
Liz,
You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your
complete lack of understanding of the theory...
Edgar
On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:02:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Dear Liz,
as a former
the
rotation of the Earth), then can you describe what the experiment would be
that shows the two observers to be in the same present moment?
Jesse
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Pierz,
The common universal present moment is defined
601 - 700 of 803 matches
Mail list logo
