Re: To observe is to......EC from David Nyman on 2006-10-24 (everything)

From: David Nyman <david.nyman.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:23:35 -0700

Colin Hales wrote:

> When you are in EC it looks like more relative speed (compared your local EC
> string), time goes slower. Traveling faster than the speed of light is
> meaningless EC can't 'construct/refresh' you beyond the rate it's () operate
> at. There's nothing to travel in anything and nothing to travel. It's
> meaningless.

It's hard not to use 'temporal' language, isn't it? So when you say the
'rate' the () operate at, you're referring ultimately to
representational granularity? And 'travel' is redistribution of
structure over this granularity?

> In deep 'time' (many more state changes in the proof beyond 'now') EC
> predicts (I think) the equivalent of approaching the speed of light, only
> not through moving fast, but by dissipation of the fabric of space/matter
> (there is no time). To be alive then (see how our words are troublesome?)
> would feel the same. But if you compared the rate of progress of EC would be
> different. An EC aging process of the time it takes to write WORD in the
> year 10^^25 could be our equivalent of 3 months of current EC state
> evolution. It's the same effect as that got by going really fast.

Yes, this would resolve the 'twin paradox' through the way that each
twin's structural redistribution is dissipated differentially through
its 'systemic acceleration' versus its 'rate of internal change'. If
I've followed you, in saying 'there is no time', you're taking the view
(e.g. with Barbour) that there is only 'change' in the sense of the
sort that we notice in comparing one part of a 4-dimensional
*compresent* structure with another, as opposed to change that
'annihilates the prior' in the A-series view of 'time'. So, in this
case, the EC 'nows' containing 'me' are identified 'indexically' within
a continuous/structural ensemble?

David

> > Colin Hales wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the
>
> > present.
>
> >
>
> > Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little
>
> > more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just
>
> > how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important whether we
>
> > conceive it as Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don't time, or does it work in
>
> > 'block' time? This may be a maths vs. 'primitive' EC issue. Anyway, if
>
> > NYSINYD, what is the status of the 'thens'? That is, if nothing but a
>
> > wafer-thin 'now' is actual, how does this effect process-structure at
>
> > the macro-level, which we encounter as Vast ensembles of events? Does
>
> > reality work as just the flimsiest meniscus? This is presumably not a
>
> > problem in a block version.
>
> >
>
> > Also, what about STR with respect to 'now' and the present?
>
> >
>
> > But perhaps I'm jumping the gun.
>
> >
>
> > David
>
> >
>
>
>
> Jump away! I'm letting EC 'rules of formation' ferment at the moment....
>
>
>
> Preamble... the mental secret to EC is to attend to one of my all time
> faves: Leibniz. His approach has always born fruit in my analyses. What he
> was on about, translated into modern jargon, was that brain operation is a
> literal metaphor for the deep structure of matter. Brain operation is a
> whole bunch of nested resonating loops. I have observed in general and found
> the same pattern in a lot of things - trees, clouds... and most wonderfully
> in the boiling froth... rice is best. :-)
>
>
>
> Time.
>
> It's important to distinguish between the mental perception of it and the
> reality of it.
>
>
>
> * TIME PERCEIVED
>
> There is a neurological condition (name escapes me) where the visual field
> is updated on mass as usual but at a repetition rate much lower than usual.
> Try pouring a glass of wine.... you see the glass at one instant and the
> next time you see it: overfull. Try crossing a road. A car is 200m away...
> you walk and bang, it's 10m away. All throughout this, EC state changes have
> been running normally.
>
>
>
> In a normally operating brain in the face of novelty, where more brain
> regions are involved as a result of dealing with the novelty (such as when
> traveling in a new area), more energy is recruited, more brain regions are
> active and the cognitive update rate is increased. Time feels like its going
> slower. All throughout this, EC state changes have been running normally.
>
>
>
> * TIME REALITY - according to EC
>
> Time is virtual. There is only EC proof and its current state. The best way
> of imaging it is to think of it as a nested structure of "nearest neighbour
> interactions" according to a local 'energy' optimization rule. 'Energy' is a
> metric counting how many ()s there are in a given structure and how many it
> can do without and still remain the same 'thing'. () () could go to (()())
> or vice versa. It doesn't matter. Overall it's a one way trip (door slams
> behind you) depending on what 'nearest neighbour' situation results from the
> present 'nearest neighbour' situation. Locally there can be lossless EC
> transformations. Globally the net result is dissipation back to primitive ()
> (and then to its constituents (noise). There is no future, only next state.
> It looks like 2nd law of thermodynamics from within it.
>
>
>
> By traveling fast through the EC string (like a wave through water) the
> faster you go compared to the refresh rate of EC-you by the () structure
> that is you, your structural state-evolution will proceed at a lower rate
> than other pieces of the EC string. EC 'you' (organisation only) is moving,
> but your structure is merely being replicated within the EC string, not
> moving at all. If we have had a previous metaphor for the EC string I'd call
> it what was once called 'the ether'. Although it's not 'real' in the sense
> that it was once thought - just a concept - a way of viewing the EC string.
>
>
>
> When you are in EC it looks like more relative speed (compared your local EC
> string), time goes slower. Traveling faster than the speed of light is
> meaningless EC can't 'construct/refresh' you beyond the rate it's () operate
> at. There's nothing to travel in anything and nothing to travel. It's
> meaningless.
>
>
>
> In deep 'time' (many more state changes in the proof beyond 'now') EC
> predicts (I think) the equivalent of approaching the speed of light, only
> not through moving fast, but by dissipation of the fabric of space/matter
> (there is no time). To be alive then (see how our words are troublesome?)
> would feel the same. But if you compared the rate of progress of EC would be
> different. An EC aging process of the time it takes to write WORD in the
> year 10^^25 could be our equivalent of 3 months of current EC state
> evolution. It's the same effect as that got by going really fast.
>
>
>
> When you are inside EC and local structure evolves in an organised way and
> achieves regularity it means an abstraction of an EC structure can have a t
> in it. Unfortunately..then we get distracted by the t possibly being
> negative and >> now and start talking as if time was real and the
> abstraction was more than an abstraction.
>
>
>
> Working in EC is very different because of the nature of its predictions. It
> predicts a thing that behaves like what we see. Gravity, QM, space, cells,
> atoms etc. So when you call for evidence you've sort of got it already. At
> the same time any particular EC is very refutable because it only has to
> mis-predict once and it's out. Take your EC proposition back to the drawing
> board and rework it. I'm only really interested in the aspects of EC as
> applied to perception and brain material: the relevance of Church's work in
> paramount in that regard. I don't have to have the exact EC we inhabit
> worked out - the basic principles apply to the whole class of possible
> calculi.
>
>
>
> Does this make sense?
>
>
>
> That's what EC tells me/predicts.
>
>
>
> Colin Hales.
>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_CcVypAeZ+x7s76SmmIcvgw)
> Content-Type: text/html
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 15948
>
> <html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
> xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
> xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
>
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Dus-ascii">
> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
> <style>
> 
> </style>
>
> </head>
>
> <body lang=3DEN-AU link=3Dblue vlink=3D"#606420">
>
> <div class=3DSection1>
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Colin Hales wrote:
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> 
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> > 3) The current state of the proof =
> is 'now'
> the thin slice of the
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> present.
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> 
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Just a couple of questions for the =
> moment Colin,
> until I've a little
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> more time. Actually, that's precisely =
> what it's
> about - 'time'. Just
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> how thin is this slice of yours? And is =
> it
> important whether we
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> conceive it as =
> Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don't time,
> or does it work in
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> 'block' time? This may be a maths vs. =
> 'primitive'
> EC issue. Anyway, if
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> NYSINYD, what is the status of the =
> 'thens'? That
> is, if nothing but a
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> wafer-thin 'now' is actual, how does =
> this effect
> process-structure at
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> the macro-level, which we encounter as =
> Vast
> ensembles of events? Does
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> reality work as just the flimsiest =
> meniscus? This
> is presumably not a
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> problem in a block =
> version.
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> 
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Also, what about STR with respect to =
> 'now' and
> the present?
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> 
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> But perhaps I'm jumping the =
> gun.
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> 
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> David
>
> lang=3DEN-US
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Jump away! I'm =
> letting EC
> 'rules of formation' ferment at the =
> moment....<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Preamble... the =
> mental secret
> to EC is to attend to one of my all time faves: Leibniz. His approach =
> has
> always born fruit in my analyses. What he was on about, translated into =
> modern
> jargon, was that brain operation is a literal metaphor for the deep =
> structure
> of matter. Brain operation is a whole bunch of nested resonating loops. =
> I have
> observed in general and found the same pattern in a lot of things - =
> trees,
> clouds... and most wonderfully in the boiling froth... rice is best. =
> :-)<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Time. =
> <o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>It's important to =
> distinguish
> between the mental perception of it and the reality of it. =
> <o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>* TIME =
> PERCEIVED<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>There is a =
> neurological
> condition (name escapes me) where the visual field is updated on mass as =
> usual
> but at a repetition rate much lower than usual. Try pouring a glass of =
> wine....
> you see the glass at one instant and the next time you see it: overfull. =
> Try
> crossing a road. A car is 200m away... you walk and bang, it's 10m away. =
> All
> throughout this, EC state changes have been running =
> normally.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>In a normally =
> operating brain
> in the face of novelty, where more brain regions are involved as a =
> result of
> dealing with the novelty (such as when traveling in a new area), more =
> energy is
> recruited, more brain regions are active and the cognitive update rate =
> is
> increased. Time feels like its going slower. All throughout this, EC =
> state
> changes have been running normally.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>* TIME REALITY =
> –
> according to EC<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Time is virtual. =
> There is only
> EC proof and its current state. The best way of imaging it is to think =
> of it as
> a nested structure of “nearest neighbour interactions” =
> according to
> a local ‘energy’ optimization rule. ‘Energy’ is =
> a
> metric counting how many ()s there are in a given structure and how many =
> it can
> do without and still remain the same ‘thing’. () () could go =
> to
> (()()) or vice versa. It doesn’t matter. Overall it’s a one =
> way
> trip (door slams behind you) depending on what ‘nearest =
> neighbour’
> situation results from the present ‘nearest neighbour’ =
> situation.
> Locally there can be lossless EC transformations. Globally the net =
> result is dissipation
> back to primitive () (and then to its constituents (noise). There is no =
> future,
> only next state. It looks like 2nd law of thermodynamics from =
> within
> it.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>By traveling fast =
> through the
> EC string (like a wave through water) the faster you go compared to the =
> refresh
> rate of EC-you by the () structure that is you, your structural =
> state-evolution
> will proceed at a lower rate than other pieces of the EC string. EC =
> ‘you’
> (organisation only) is moving, but your structure is merely being =
> replicated within
> the EC string, not moving at all. If we have had a previous metaphor for =
> the EC
> string I’d call it what was once called ‘the ether’. =
> Although
> it’s not ‘real’ in the sense that it was once thought =
> –
> just a concept – a way of viewing the EC =
> string.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>When you are in EC =
> it looks
> like more relative speed (compared your local EC string), time goes =
> slower. Traveling
> faster than the speed of light is meaningless EC can’t =
> ‘construct/refresh’
> you beyond the rate it’s () operate at. There’s nothing to =
> travel
> in anything and nothing to travel. It’s =
> meaningless.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>In deep =
> ‘time’
> (many more state changes in the proof beyond ‘now’) EC =
> predicts (I
> think) the equivalent of approaching the speed of light, only not =
> through
> moving fast, but by dissipation of the fabric of space/matter (there is =
> no
> time). To be alive then (see how our words are troublesome?) would feel =
> the
> same. But if you compared the rate of progress of EC would be different. =
> An EC
> aging process of the time it takes to write WORD in the year 10^^25 =
> could be
> our equivalent of 3 months of current EC state evolution. It’s the =
> same
> effect as that got by going really fast.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>When you are inside =
> EC and
> local structure evolves in an organised way and achieves regularity it =
> means an
> abstraction of an EC structure can have a t in it. =
> Unfortunately….then we
> get distracted by the t possibly being negative and >> now and =
> start
> talking as if time was real and the abstraction was more than an =
> abstraction. <o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Working in EC is =
> very different
> because of the nature of its predictions. It predicts a thing that =
> behaves like
> what we see. Gravity, QM, space, cells, atoms etc. So when you call for
> evidence you’ve sort of got it already. At the same time any =
> particular
> EC is very refutable because it only has to mis-predict once and =
> it’s
> out. Take your EC proposition back to the drawing board and rework it. =
> I’m
> only really interested in the aspects of EC as applied to perception and =
> brain
> material: the relevance of Church’s work in paramount in that =
> regard. I don’t
> have to have the exact EC we inhabit worked out – the basic =
> principles
> apply to the whole class of possible =
> calculi.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Does this make =
> sense?<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>That’s what EC =
> tells
> me/predicts.<o:p></o:p>
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US =
> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></p=
> >
>
> New"><span
> lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Colin =
> Hales.<o:p></o:p>
>
> </div>
>
> </body>
>
> </html>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_CcVypAeZ+x7s76SmmIcvgw)--

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Oct 24 2006 - 07:23:54 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST