On 11/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One exemple of a possible world is that GoL-universe, of which there is a > picture of on the Wikipedia page. > > One interesting thing about this particular GoL-universe is that it is > finite, the time goes in a circle in that universe. That universe only > consists of 14 situations. After the 14th situation follows the 1st > situation again. > > This GoL-universe exists, but it is a non-reflexive world, I can not see> > anything reflexive in that universe.
I don't understand why, despite everything I've said to the contrary, you still see GoL as non-reflexive. Perhaps you mean that no evolutionary stage of 'GoL-Universe' is in fact sufficiently complex to support conscious participants? But that in itself doesn't make GoL constitutively non-reflexive - i.e. lacking self-access - merely too simple in actual structure to manifest this in the form of conscious agents. I get really confused when you jump about between GoL and your original B-Universe story. I have no quarrel with GoL. It's the B-Universe that I suggested wasn't possible, because you *specified* it to be non-reflexive in just the sense I've discussed: i.e. that despite it having the same structure and behaviour as the A-Universe, it is supposed to lack all self-access. My point is just that any 'universe' described in such a comprehensively inaccessible way may just be a misconception that doesn't deserve to survive the cut of Occam's razor. We can't observe it, it can't observe itself: in what further sense is it 'possible'? My whole point in being so tediously explicit about 'reflexivity', as I said to Brent, was because I doubted that everyone shared the intuition that 'existence simpliciter', as he put it, given sufficient complexity of structure, just *entails* equivalent complexity of self-access: IOW what ultimately we term consciousness. You seem indeed not to share this intuition, and as a result, in various ways, you've either denied that you yourself are conscious, or postulated 'identical' universes which mysteriously lack this 'extra ingredient'. I don't believe such claims make much sense. David > > David Nyman skrev: > On 11/07/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > (quite contrary to the premise of the everything-list, but one that I'm > glad to entertain). > > For what it's worth, I really don't see that this is necessarily > contrary to the premise of this list. The proposition is that all > POSSIBLE worlds exist, not that anything describable in words (or for > that matter mathematically) 'exists'. My analysis is an attempt to > place a constraint on what can be said to exist in any sense strong > enough to have any discernible consequences, either for us, or for > any putative denizens of such 'worlds'. So I would argue that > non-reflexive worlds are not possible in any consequential sense of > the term. > > What do you mean with a POSSIBLE world? > > One exemple of a possible world is that GoL-universe, of which there is a > picture of on the Wikipedia page. > > One interesting thing about this particular GoL-universe is that it is > finite, the time goes in a circle in that universe. That universe only > consists of 14 situations. After the 14th situation follows the 1st > situation again. > > This GoL-universe exists, but it is a non-reflexive world, I can not see > anything reflexive in that universe. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---