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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to