This post went by my mistake to Alberto only. It was meant to the list as
John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alberto Gómez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: SAS and mathematical existence

> Alberto,
> Digitality and its application is human invention and humans APPLY it to
> world. With a different evolutionary setup of brainfunctions we maight
> a different idea of the "mathematical". Would that change the world?
> maybe someone could identify the "mathematical" in the sense as it
> by itself. I think in "effects" not finding the "words" properly
> them. If the 'mathematical' does describe them all properly, it is still a
> description of something otherwise not identifiable, not the "something"
> itself.
> I have the idea that the esteemed listmembers consider "the mathematical"
> a god that created the world and rules its existence. By itself.
> John Mikes
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alberto Gómez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:24 AM
> Subject: SAS and mathematical existence
> > For me there is no bigger step between to wonder about how conscience
> > arises from a universe made by atoms in a Newtonian universe, particles
> > in a quantum universe, quarks in a quantum relativistic universe and
> > finally, superstring/n-branes in a 11 dimensional universe for one side
> > and, on the other side, to wonder about how SAS in a complex enough
> > mathematical structure can have a sense of conscience.
> >
> > Conscience has evolutionary advantages in biological terms, and probably
> > the conscience will emerge, with time, in any description in which the
> > rules permit a replication-with-variations/selection and where one
> > objects feeds from others. It doesn't matter if the description is made
> > of n-branes in 11 dimensional spaces or in any other
> > mathematical/algorithmical construct.
> >
> > These self aware structures in their particular space-time will describe
> > trajectories in which a superintelligent and supradimensional observer
> > could see, inside the SAS, some components: neurons, or alike, that
> > shows signs of troughs about themselves and the rest of their world in a
> > way that interactions between SAS will depend on the changes of their
> > brains -or something like brains-. This is the most that an external
> > observer can experience about the conscience of other beings. These
> > beings will think, so they will exist -and they will think that they
> > exist, that is crucial - . That must be true either in our "physical"
> > world or the world of a geometrical figure in a n-dimensional spacetime,
> > or in a computer simulation defined by a complex enough algorithm (These
> > three alternative ways of describing universes may be isomorphic, being
> > the first a particular case or not. The computability of our universe
> > doesn't matter for this question).
> >
> > So the mathematical existence, when SAS are possible inside the
> > mathematical formulation, implies existence (the expression "physical
> > existence" may be a redundancy)
> >
> > But, for these mathematical descriptions to exist, it is necessary the
> > existence of being with a higher dimensionality and intelligence that
> > formulate these mathematical descriptions?  That is: every mathematical
> > object does exist outside of any conscience? The issue is not to
> > question that "mathematical existence (with SAS) implies physical
> > existence", (according with the above arguments it is equivalent). The
> > question is the mathematical existence itself.
> >

Reply via email to