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.

## Advertising

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. David Hi Jason > > I have not contributed to the list for a while but your question interests > me. > 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." > > George > > 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. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---