On 01/07/07, George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GL: I do not accept as primitive an independent
mathematicalism/arithmetical realism. I think that math and logic are
co-emergent with the consciousness of the observer. In addition physics is
also co-emergent with the observer. So in a sense the "I" or first person is
primitive-emergent. "I", math and physics are all anthropically linked.
DN: Hi George. I agree with the substance of this, and similar intuitions
lie behind my recent posts. Perhaps to avoid seemingly inevitable
terminological confusions over the "I" and the first person, I might put it
that a 0-personal self is primitive-emergent, and 1-persons or observers
emerge from self-relative localisations of this.
GL: The simplest theory of everyting is that everything exists. But this is
hardly satisfying. A useful theory of everything should bring in the
observer as a boundary condition.
DN: Yes, perhaps one could say that the 'self' is the 'everything' that
exists, but that the self is not finite. Finitude manifests as the
spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the self, or self-relativisation, which is
then equivalent to self-actualisation in terms of the co-emergence of
observers and physics. Math and logic in turn would emerge as aspects of
the observer description of co-emergence, not the physical description.
GL: This would correspond to the "I" being equally "at home" in multiple
different worlds or equivalently that multiple worlds would be in a
superposition with respect to the "I."
DN: Yes, this is a good way to phrase it. Relative co-emergence of
1-persons and physical structures would then equate to observer-dependent
decoherence from the superposition of multiple worlds with respect to the
self. Any arbitrarily finite degree of actualisation from the 'plenitude' -
or which model is 'true' - may indeed be indeterminate. To paraphrase
somebody or other, perhaps even a TOE need be infinite enough to save the
appearances, but not more so. So as an aspect of such a theory, the
plenitude allows us to extract any arbitrary limit of possible observed
relationships from 'infinity' by postulating, as you say, the observer (or
any possible observer) as the boundary condition.
> I have not contributed to the list for a while but your question interests
> I do not accept as primitive an independent mathematicalism/arithmetical
> realism. I think that math and logic are co-emergent with the consciousness
> of the observer. In addition physics is also co-emergent with the observer.
> So in a sense the "I" or first person is primitive-emergent. "I", math and
> physics are all anthropically linked.
> The information of the plenitude being zero is the simplest case that
> requires the least explanation. Any other information content would have to
> be justified, and that would force us an endless causal chain. Now let me
> qualify that the "*perceived"* information of the plenitude is definitely
> not zero because it is contingent on the observer. Here the causal chain can
> begin at the observer.
> The simplest theory of everyting is that everything exists. But this is
> hardly satisfying. A useful theory of everything should bring in the
> observer as a boundary condition. The theory, more precisely, which physical
> model is "true," may be indeterminate. This indeterminacy would be analogous
> to quantum indeterminacy applied to the cosmic scale. This would correspond
> to the "I" being equally "at home" in multiple different worlds or
> equivalently that multiple worlds would be in a superposition with respect
> to the "I."
> Jason wrote:
> I have seen two main justifications on this list for the everything
> ensemble, the first comes from information theory which says the
> information content of everything is zero (or close to zero). The
> other is mathematicalism/arithmatical realism which suggests
> mathematical truth exists independandly of everything else and is the
> basis for everything.
> My question to the everything list is: which explaination do you
> prefer and why? Are these two accounts compatible, incompatible, or
> complimentary? Additionally, if you subscribe to or know of other
> justifications I would be interesting in hearing it.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at