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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
101 - 124 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
