sorry about all the posts.
something weird going on.

> 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
> To exist is to be a chunk of our universe.
> Why is there a universe?
> I can manufacture a universe out of randomness of any sort. The randomness
> is a sea of monkeys day, accidentally, they write a
> masterpiece.
> Why is there randomness?
> It takes an infinite amount of energy to maintain a perfect Nothing. The
> logical impossibility of a perfect Nothing means not-Nothing must be true.
> not-Nothing is Something. So universes existence because of a failure not
> to exist, simply because it's impossibly hard.
> This may not feel very satisfactory, but, it is quite logically sound.
> It doesn't actually matter what the true nature of the randomness is...the
> same sorts of structures can be made with it. Us. At the deep structural
> levels of the randomness the details don't matter.
> So there you go.... life the universe and eveything. It's all completely
> meaningless noise and it'll all go back to other random versions of
> 'Not-Nothing' (not so eloquent monkey scribble) in due course, and all our
> efforts will amount to nothing. Literally. So enjoy your qualia while you
> have them!
> Is the universe a computer? No.
> It the universe computation? Yes.
> :-)
> Colin Hales
> >

 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