Liz,
I think Edgar's computational reality can be consistent with the
computational theory of mind if you somehow constrain reality to be
small and finite.
The moment you let the universe be very big (eternal inflation) then
you also get an infinite number of computers built by aliens in
distant galaxies, any of which might be simulating you, and the same
consequences Bruno points out apply.
My question to Edgar is why do you believe reality is finite? This
seems to contradict a number of current scientific theories.
Also, when do you believe reality was created? And how do you explain
it's origins?
Jason
On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:35 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10 January 2014 17:19, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/9/2014 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
No Liz, I told you what it IS. It's the happening in computational
space that enables computations to take place since something has
to move for computations to occur. All it DOES is provide the
processor cycle for computations.
You seem to be nit picking...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
Common Liz, I just spent the last number of posts telling you and
Stephen what it is... Don't make me repeat myself...
I don't know why there is this concern about Edgar's computations.
It's seems very much like Bruno's, except Bruno's Universal computer
is running all possible programs (by dovetailing). The time that
appears on clocks is a computed ordering relation which is conjugate
to the conserved quantity called "energy".
Bruno's dovetailer is supposedly running (if that's the word) in an
abstract space, while Edgar's processor units are, as far as one can
tell, intended to be in some sense physical. It's clear what Bruno's
ontology is based on, he makes it explicit in his axioms. It isn't
clear what Edgar's ontology is based on - he seems to be assuming
that time and some form of computation are fundamental properties of
the universe, but not what those computers are running on (by Turing
equivalence, I assume they COULD be running on a desktop PC in some
other universe) or what his "universal present moment" consists of -
is it a linear dimensio, say? But then it appears to be quantised,
since it only supports discrete computational steps. Can time be
quantised? What are the implications? Do things like the Landauer
limit come into his theory?
The concern is, I suspect, due to...
a) a lack of rigour, either logical or mathematical, in describing
the theory
b) a lack of testable results, or indications of how one gets from
the theory to the observed reality
c) a bad attitude
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
