Colin and all: it was a shock to receive your post (below). First I have to copy it out and restore the text to some readability from all those haphazardous ">>>>>" lines. Then I have to restore my thinking into those lines of the topic - right recently 'destroyed' by a list inuindating me with 100+ posts daily mostly with political hogwash, but many of them with interesting multitopical content.
I hope to return to sanity. Then I will try to respond - if I feel I can - which will require an other aberration from the ubiquitous 'sanity' into the ideas of this list. This is something like being 'normal' as we discussed it with George Levy a year or so ago. Sane (normal) is average and usual. If the majority is insane, that is the normal sanity (oops I fell back into politics). So let me renormalize (not in theor. physical ways) and please, accept my reply kindly - after some time. Happy birthday John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: Colin Geoffrey Hales To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:59 PM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 sorry about all the posts. something weird going on. > > see below...... > >> >> See below, please >> John >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 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 typing...one 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---