Erick,thanks for your comments on my exchange with GeorgeQ.

Although I do not claim to have understood (digested?) all of your post,
I feel it may be in my line of thinking (pardon me the offense). I just use
less connotations to 'time' related phrases, as may be obvious from below.

Over the years I tried in several attempts to voice on this (and other)
lists
that all our phys-math considerations are secondary, coming from (and by)
human understanding of something with/by human logic.
I see no evidence that the existence (nature? everything") would follow
our approval - 'our' as part/product of it. "Physical law" is a model of
our thinking (I may be crucified for this) and fetishizing our understanding
is IMO narrow. Even the 'elephant/rabbit' excursions start from some
'random' arrangement of "photons", which are 'our' interpretation about
sthing which may be interpreted quite differently by different mindsets.

This is the reason - I think - why GeorgeQ found my ideas mystical. In my
vocabulary mystical is what has not (yet?) been explained. I work with all
unknown/unknowables, trying to make sense of the so far 'undiscovered'
within the 'boundaries' of our mind. I call it my scientific agnosticism.
Time and space are our crutches (boundaries? see below).
Russell St. scolded me several times for my 'non-mathematical' stance as
improper, vague, undefinable etc. - he is right, I don't 'force' my (our)
understanding onto things beyond it. Equationally or not.

I appreciate your remark:
> as later will be mentioned, boviously perception play a big role in this
> value, is your definition of the univers from the perspective of a human
> being, being that self within it's self, as projected outwards from a
finite
> continuum into a supposedly infinite continuum?<
(whether 'boviously' is a typo for obviously, or a hint to the early style
on
this list calling adverse ideas "bovine excrement").

Somebody speculated on the way of 'thinking' on Venus where the clouds
prevent any info about the extravenereal world (cosmology, philosophy,
etc.). We are sitting closed in by a mental cloud of our "understanding",
ie boundaries of our mindset (epistemically steadily widening, however).

I believe 'computation' here goes beyond the 'binary calculations' as well
as (maybe) temporal considerations. "Life" I consider differently, IMO
it is some natural function we overappreciate because "we do it" (cf the
biology etc. in our reductionistic science system). 'Consciousness' I call
the acknowledgement (by anything) and response to (incl, storage) of
information - absolutely not restricted to functions we would deem 'life'.
So I have no problem with 'universes' (not?) containing 'live' products.
We muster a reductionistic way of our mindset: using limited models of
observables, cut into (select) boundaries in a world of (wholistically)
interconnected interaction of things way beyond our cognitive inventory.

Regards

John Mikes



----- Original Message -----
From: "Erick Krist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?


> > to your series of questions I would like to add one as first:
> > "What do you call universe?"
>
> i think this question is most temporally cognitively perceptual in nature.
> as explained:
>
> > as long as we do not make this identification, it is futile to
> > speculate about "its" computability/computed sate.
>
> as later will be mentioned, boviously perception play a big role in this
> value, is your definition of the univers from the perspective of a human
> being, being that self within it's self, as projected outwards from a
finite
> continuum into a supposedly infinite continuum?
> or are you looking at the univers from the point of view of a rock which
> site blindly in time without temporant perceptual motion?
> obviously there are many different perceptual universes, and any of them
> could be philosphically percieved by the mind, therefor any of them would
be
> physically coorect on a perceptual model of a temporant cyclical universe.
>
> we have to keep in mind, the time itself may only be a function of the
> combined perceptual receptions of our own internally functioning senses
> biologically simultaneously now.
>
> > I see not too much value in assuming infinite memories
> > and infinite time of computation, that may lead to a game
>
> and i may i beg to ask is a computer supposed to under any assumption
> compute a continuous value of infinite using binary logic as it's base
> computational rate?
>
> >-calling "computation" the object to be computed.
>
> this is quite naturally the function of time works in the first place.
> time is the measure of the systematic computational functions of an
internal
> system as measured by the temporant singularity of the external structures
> of that internal system as an alternatively functional singular temporant
> system of it's own. .: the nature of a coputationally temporant universe
> involves the notion of a singular object, calculating it's own internal
> reference states in order to functionally compute it's own new external
> appearance while maintaining it's own internal functions in time.
>
> > Is 'Multiverse' part of your universe, or vice versa?
>
> it occurs to me that while yes, absolutely the funcion of a multiverse is
> perceptually accurate, that when a computer 'calculates' temporal
function,
> that it is calculating time from a computer's viewpoint, and not a human's
> percetual understanding. Therefor a true projection of an absolute univers
> would be one without life in it, and therefor one which we as humans are
> perceptually unviable to deal with. (except of course under the presence
of
> some form of philosophical existentialism by behavioural thought process)
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Georges Quenot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
SNIP


Reply via email to