On 14 Aug, 17:56, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > It doesn't have to explain it on the basis of apriori axioms. Standard
> > cosmology accepts
> > that many features fo the universe stem from contingent, essentially
> > unaccountable boundary conditions.
> Well, actually these strangely "contingent" conditions are what leads to
> discussions of the "everything" sort - here, we want to explain these
> contingents also (or say why they are not explainable).
Yes, you do. But if you can't explain things on a no-axiom basis --
and it is
difficult to see how you could, give that all deductive arguments
start from some premise or another--
then that approach is not advantageous.
> Also, in standard cosmology you have the problem of duplicate "yous" in
> remote parts of the infinite universe.
Standard cosmology is neutral about the (in)finity of the universe.
Also, the more extreme WR/HP
universes are forbidden because even in the MW versions of standard
cosmology, worlds are constrained by the laws of physics. That is: I
might just see a unicorn or a pixie, but I will never see a cold fire
or a hovering rock.
> Again, you have the indetermincy
> problem - here maybe even without turing emulable minds.
I don't see why. Even assuming the unknown and contingent issue of the
infinity of the universe,
a) I have the same consciousness in the same perceived environment, in
which case the indeterminacy is
is indetectible and trivial
b) I have the same (momentary) consciousness in different
environments, in which
case divergence will quickly follow.
> It depends if you believe in duplication or unity of conscious experience.
> Günther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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