See below....

> See below, please
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
>>> Addition to my "lost and found" 1st post in this topic to
>>> Marc:
>>> I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the
>>> ----"
>>> IS
>>> "----?
>>> *
>>> I agree that 'existence' is  more than a definitional question.
>>> Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
>>> (Not Descartes' s "I think therefore I think I am"  and so on)
>>> John
>> There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I
>> can
>> think of:
>> Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy),
>> if
>> you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are
>> 'being',
>> you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It
>> does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is
>> innate to the situation.
>> So....I am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so
>> on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I
>> get
>> a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The
>> rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom.
>> This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit
>> to
>> the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand
>> point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the
>> 'reality'
>> of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described.
>> make sense?
>> Colin
> JM:
> maybe, not to my understanding;
> I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS", in which of course an
> 'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
> May I paraphrase your explanation:
> "I am" - 'made of a chunk  of something called universe, - whatever I call
> so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something different.
> Not too explanatory.
> Of course it  disregards my question and starts with an implied  "if I
> exist..." what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'.
> I was driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first
> a
> snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
> So:  what is "existence'?
> John

The same laws that run a rock run us. I don't know 'what it is like' to be
a rock, but I think I can reasonably expect it to be like 'not much'. The
rock has the same 'perspective view' of everything that is not itself. It
has simply not gone to the trouble of arranging for the potential view to
be made 'like something'.

The same rules that make me, you, and the rock are also used to make use
of the potential view. So from that perspective 'existence' is to be a
chuck of the universe...end of story.

As to the deeper question as to why there is something rather then
nothing, the age old question...... well I have my delusions about this
which currently involve making a universe out of randomness, spontaneously
as a very infrequent but logically inevitable result of the behaviouir of
random processes.

Then there is the deeper question of why are there random processes at
all? This question is solved based on one logical inevitability.... the
impossibility of the infinite. To manufacture a perfect 'nothing' re

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to