Hi Georgina...
I have never met NY independent film maker, Jonathan Khanlian, in person, but my "physic's ideas" are deeply rooted in his 2015 retro 1980 perspective film, "Digital Physics", and my discussion of the film, was to stage the critical nature I assigned to your observations of the I consider the "inherent weakness in Space-Time models that do not "verify" a minimum temporal interval as a system constant"... i.e. observations highly critical to the outcome of the unresolved final scene of Khanlian's film.
In regard to your previous post usage of "primordial", I definitely was, and am, utilizing FQXi 'Alternative Models of Reality' to present/discuss"... i.e. promote... my "physic's ideas" ... i.e. "In that "primordial" Energy has no information content until it is distributed, by a pulsed 2 bit differential, onto an information matrices, a limit of knowledge is imposed, and the pulse rate (frequency) at which Minimum Quanta of Energy (QE) are pulsed onto the Minimum Quanta Spatial (QI) addresses of the information matrices, is the Minimum Quanta of Time (QT), which is the temporal constant of the information system".
If the conversation is not relevant to you, my address of it, to you, was an error in judgment, but not necessarily "inappropriate" for FQXi community.
As for an advertisement?... as a consequence of digital media, a human tendency to become blatant propagandist for our own work, and for the work of other's, which for one reason or another, we think deserves societal exposure, has become blatantly apparent.
If you do make it to the "Digital Physics" movie website, at http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/... and click on Science Corner... you will find Khanlian promoting links to credentialed propagandist, to include Edward Fredkin, Seth Lloyd, Stephen Wolfram, Nick Bostrum, George Chaitin, James Gates, etc:
2015 Science Festival: "Rebooting the Cosmos"
Science Festival: "Limits of Knowledge"
Science Festival: "Are We Living In a Simulation"
2000 Carnegie Mellon Lecture: George Chaitin IBM
2009 TVO Lecture: "Does Reality have a Generic Basis"
Stephen Wolfram: "A New Kind of Science"
A "was there, done that" association with the events documented by this Historical-FAQ-SIM film may indeed bias review, but bias balance is being addressed by recent (last week) Digital Physic's Tweets (as logged on the website), inviting social media credentialed academic review... i.e. "Waiting for brave celebrity-scientist to review "Digital Physics"" @FQXi @sfiscience @neiltyson @stephen_wolfram @tegmark @bgreene #please
In order to clarify usage of a multi-faceted word... i.e. "reason"... I referenced Spalding's usage for you, because in referenced "context", it is specific to "knowledge by direct understanding of first principles", rather than "by argument".
To further clarify by "context", the B.T. Spalding quote is from "Life and Teachings of Master's of the Far East" Vol. 4, Chapt. 13 "The Quantum Theory", in which "true reason" is applicable to a demonstration of an unbroken kinematic chain of verifiable Information Events from Source to Phenomena = True or False.
Judgment made solely on a verifiable true or false condition, is dependent only on the word "verifiable", and one can make no argument "against mental exploration of possibilities", if acknowledgement of verifiable is a prerequisite of funded exploration.
In reference to Spalding's "The Quantum Theory", an unbroken kinematic chain of verifiable Information Events, to Source, can not be achieved from manifestation without resolving Information Events at the Singularity of the Source... which, as you have mentioned, is a bit intimidating even for Stephen Hawking... but a UQS Resolved Singularity, which currently satisfys Emission Mechanix out to 75 pulses, does exist.
With regard to "reason" as you use it in the sense of "logic statements", the "principle" is not adequately resolved, if no differentiation between true and false can be measured... i.e. equivalent is not necessarily equal to comparable... which makes logic a valid test circuit for resolved "principle", and as such might assist judgment in the current FQXi essay contest...i.e. "What is "Fundamental"?".
In that your usage of the multi-faceted word "religion"... Ecclesiastical and/or Scientific... implies doctrine based protocol for believes and/or measurement procedures, the advertising of such beliefs and/or measurements as "mental exploration of possibilities" could, if doctrine does not acknowledge verifiable as a parameter of valid content, be problematic to "reason" in any guise, and it could be argued that such content should be constrained by deletion.
However, commo threads broken by moderation can mislead subsequent perception of the communication in the same manner that broken kinematic chains of Energy distribution can distort observed phenomena... i.e.Information Events... and I find constraint by responsible social media categorization preferable.
Inappropriate?... Appropriate??... I tend to agree with you that, in finality, how judged, "... depends upon whether it is judged using the prevailing doctrine or principles preceding it", and a case can be made for using principles subsequent to, but not yet, prevailing.
In that social media "moderation" has demonstrated the power of edit by delete, in finality, the validity of one's un-moderated commo record, lies with the individual, and I maintain a link from my website home to a Log of All My Social Media and Forum Commo Post, at http://www.uqsmatrixmehanix.com/UQSSMF.php/
In any case... thank you Georgina, for your thoughtful reply, and for the opportunity to "sandwich" a reiteration of my "physic's ideas" into the apparently necessary, Societal Media "Moderation" Ethics diversion herein.
As a means to re-focus the discussion, I am looking forward to following the threads of mental exploration made possible by your Observations of "time" as a differential interval... i.e. pulse count... and "time dimension" as a differential of Object Reality pulse counts... i.e. variable.
Sue Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com
