Ted,

I do not dispute that Cellular Automaton is better model for that, it certainly is. However, it's apparent that such model is definitely not any CA (it must be Class 4 CA for start), so using it to explain what's going on when examined at certain level and principle of meta-computation wasn't good idea to me (it would IMHO cause more confusion as referring to CA as general concept wouldn't explain anything without further complex details about it), hence I mentioned Lisp as more simpler and direct analogy one could be familiar with (but the central point was meta-computation - computation on formulas which is still strange idea on itself for many people). As I read this forum, it doesn't look to me that its full of highly trained physicists and mathematicians (including myself, as I wouldn't dare to call myself as one) so I tend to use simpler approximated analogies one could be directly familiar with from normal (unspecialised) life experience.

This is exactly the reason why I hate the use of exists/not exists dualities in discussions. It only confuses things. If one would cease to use existence as duality completely and instead start to use it as modality (exists as) exclusively, everything would be clear and more easy to communicate.

Your statement rewritten: "if we don´t get the information, PMR exists as wave function in NPMR". Isn't it more clear for everyone than original one?
BTW, PMR exists as wave function in NPMR whether you get the information or do not. Information you get is just your own personalized snapshot created from it (using it as temple).

MaxQ - perhaps read this thread and it might shed some light on what is being discussed.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3043&p=6797&hilit=trees#p6797

MaxQ,

In the model discussion of the Wiki I have referenced a CA which I think meets the requirements to match what we are able to impute from the nature of reality as observable here in PMR, including a link to the actual paper in prepublication form. The published version is available for a fee. It was deterministic both forwards and backwards from state plane to state plane, necessary to permit the existence of and access to Tom's 3 data bases/the Akashic records and general access to past and future. It was capable of all functions of digital logic and computation and to fully allow simulation of a PMR digital computer. It was capable of hosting a universal assembler: scanning a data field, transmitting that data over an arbitrary path and then reassembling or copying that data field at this new location. A link is provided on the Wiki and the full Abstract is copied there. There are quite good articles and sites, in terms of exhibiting the kinds of things that can be done within a CA, linked from there also and providing an insight into CA which is available to non mathematicians and non programmers. Lisp is not an easy language to learn, if you start from a basis of the more common languages and it cannot be so graphically demonstrated as a CA can.

Ted

Thank you Linda for Tom´s link.

It was a great effort on Tom´s part to explain the complexity in an understandable way.

Our mechanical reflex of considering PMR as real is due to the fact that the purpose is to make us feel it is real, so that we play the game well played, and at the end of the game, check in what way it served our consciousness.

Since I was very young, due to precognition, I understood on my own, with great effort, that consciousness was the "big" thing and that somehow PMR belonged
to NPMR as something "minor". What never occurred to me is that PMR could be
a virtual reality. I never understood how it could be possible that a "real" physical reality, thick, dense , heavy, could belong to a mental reality.

There is, nevertheless, one thing which I don´t understand: why is consciousness finite. Does it mean it will die? Or is this the part that we are not in the capacity to understand because it would depend on the infinite/eternal which is behind it.

Dinah,

As Tom describes it, Consciousness as the LCS is finite because it is real and all 'real' things are finite. It is unbounded and growing with no known limits to that growth. Infinity is a mathematical concept.

Ted

Sainbury: Thanks for the link, but I was familiar with it (VR reality and its rendering from MBT's POV) and general concepts of VR and all that jazz (I'm in IT by profession since eighties). I wonder what triggered you think that I'd need to read that? Thanks anyway.

Ted: Thanks for pointing that paper out, I missed it. Interesting read. However, I know what CA is and various things that could be done with it including first hand experience (although I'm certainly no expert in this area and didn't followed all research). I agree with you about Lisp, but as I needed a simple analogy I used what I'm familiar with and wouldn't require many sentences to put in context, hence I mentioned it (that's all).

I think that we're all on the same page here. I'm maybe a little bit touchy to too much liberal use of exists/not exists dualities and sometimes to oversimplifications, but that's all. Guess it's a bad habit I should unlearn, but for now it's as it is. Thanks for feedback.

Ted, I had never thought about infinite/eternal being a mathematical concept.

Is the abstract not real?

It is just a matter of words but the concept is the same.

If we are unbounded, growing with no limits, existing makes sense. That is why reincarnation is necessary because what we evolve in one lifetime is infinitesimal.

MaxQ: is Information Technology the same than Computer Science?

In the sense as they're used in mundane conversations you may see the IT as practical where CS is theoretical side of the same field.

Thanks, MaxQ

Dinah,

Eternal is not a mathematical concept but infinity is. Here is the symbol used for infinity: ∞. A simple form of infinity is just to consider 1/0 (one divided by zero). There is actually in mathematics a hierarchy of infinities with them ordered by 'size', although in a sense this makes no sense as why would not infinity be equal to infinity? All of this has really faded into the past for me.

MaxQ,

What is your field, for curiosity?

Ted

Well, last decade it's primarily various development, testing and support around SQL engine development project. Quite eclectic stuff ranging from QA processes, driver development, sw tools of all type, data and system analysis, system design to web development. But in the past I was also in operating system development, compilers, sw languages, automatic control of technological processes, business systems of various types, sw development support (sw tools, frameworks and libraries of various purpose) and I wrote some games too. Love what computers can do and exploring the possibilities. Happens that it was a thing from what I did/do to fulfil my purpose here that can easily bring food on table. But my real field is everything (it has to be).

MaxQ, how did you find your way to Tom`s MBT and this forum?

I am curious too :).

Anna

OPEN QUESTION:

I'm OK with the concept that since there is no objective PMR, the question of "stuff" existing or not existing is therefore illogical.

But how is one to reconcile that with Tom's warning (I'm thinking of part 1 of the Calgary lecture) about not confusing the model of reality with reality itself?
He uses the example of a map vs the actual territory it describes.
Kind of like walking into a restaurant and eating the menu. Don't confuse a model of reality with the reality itself.
Makes sense, right?
But what is NOT a model?
And if we were to arrive at something that we agree is not a model, would we not then be logically obliged to accept it neither is, nor is not existing???
So what is Tom referring to when he says not to confuse the model of reality with reality itself?

Anybody care to help me out with this? Ted, Max, Tom?
Thanks,

Dave

_________________
The secret of dreams is that subject and object are the same, but you had to give names to everything, and make logos for bad ideas, and because of that you will have to learn to touch what you make.

That's the same sort of question like "how you became a person you're now?" Impossible to answer without being boring so I'll pass. :-)