There is no ontological debt; Nothing exists in the conventional sense. It's all a potential pattern which cannot not be fact. 2+2=4 and an infinite number of other relations are true, which are the 'atoms' of this pattern. Transition is only apparent from within subsets.
-
-
-
I don't see how we can exist in (constructive) mathematics. Something must compute, I am stuck with the same conclusion as Aristotle
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's remarkable only if the transition function is very complex. I suspect it's extremely simple. Even repeated operation of XOR produces remarkable emergent behavior (e.g., http://eloquence.github.io/elixor/ ).
-
No! I know that a minimal finite state machine for performing universal computation is incredibly easy to make. And yet, how is there something rather than nothing? Does that not blow your mind?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The simplest prime mover conceivable of generating our universe is one that enumerates and runs ALL algorithms in a round-robin manner. Unfortunately, that does not tell us anything about the laws of our universe.
-
Isn't it evident that the enumerator is the prime mover? How else would one explain that humans likely could have evolved in much simpler universes? The additional complexity can only be explained by assuming that universes of all levels of complexity are run in parallel.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Psychedelics allow to break out of local minima in modeling space by increasing the hyperparameter for probability of unproven priors. If your epistemology is not waterproof you may get lost and become a mystic. The universe has no gnostic interface.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Instead of "the void" Ed Fredkin used to refer it as "other".
-
Yes, he told me... and since his particular digital physics has so many epicycles, he is drawn to the suspicion that there are intentional beings in the other. But now we are stuck with the same autogenesis problem, one level higher.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A prime mover of a transition function would imply something like a universally defined absolut time measure („ticking in the void“)...which does not exist according to general relativity. Or am I getting your argument wrong?
-
Time is intrinsically relativistic, and only exists with respect to the rate of change of an observer observing change in its environment. State transitions on the substrate graph are more fundamental than time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.