Jean-Michel Veuillen wrote: > Then our universe did not exist before there were > intelligent observers in it, which is not true. > > I think that is better to say that all > self-consistent mathematical structures exist. > To restrict existence to universes containing > SASs (self-aware structures) is not only is > very cumbersome but leads to contradictions. The stipulation that a universe involves principly, if not fully, population by SAS's .. could be seen as a 'restriction'. However, that only happens when self-awareness .. as a relationship and property .. is narrowly defined or acsribed to limited types of organization(s) within a 'universe'.
If instead, it is a property that is relevant to the generic class "relationship(s)", then self-awareness becomes synonymous with self-relationship(s). And when -that- is the dominating and established characteristic of 'being', then it is natural and unavoidable .. and complete .. that some degree of associative awareness is present and operating in all systems in all universes. The forms and extents may vary. The behaviors may be more cognizable 'in' some instantiations and relevant 'to' some instantions, but the core phenomenon is there none the less, in -all- instantiations. Co-relevance. Where it is only secondary and higher relations, through which may emerge, and via which may be instituted .. conditional 'disconnects' .. such that information is locally blocked and some parts of the totality de facto exist 'numb' to other extant 'information'; at least if that barrier remains intact and not bridged (as is its potential). I.e., disparate information might be accessible if the correct transduction (transform) arrangements are made, and translations made real. Jamie Rose Ceptual Institute
