Michael Rosefield wrote:
> And of course you could always add <ASPECT 0> - all possible instances 
> of <ASPECT 1>....
>
>
Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a 
name for something like that? unigenesis?

As I said in my post to Jesse:
- - -- - - - - -
<aspect 1> is NOT underling reality, but a description of it. There may 
be 100 complete, consistent sets, all of which work as well as each 
other. We must live with that potential ambiguity. There's no 
fundamental reason why we are ever entitled to a unique solution to 
<aspect 1>. But it may turn out that there can only be one. We'll never 
know unless we let ourselves look, will we??

<aspect 2> is NOT underling reality, but a description of its 
appearances to an observer inside a reality described structurally as 
<aspect 1>. 100 different life-forms, as scientists/observers all over 
the universe, may all concoct 100 totally different sets of 'laws of 
nature', each  one just as predictive of the natural world, none of 
which are 'right' , but all are 'predictive' to each life-form. They all 
are empirically verified by 100 very different P-consciousnesses of each 
species of scientist....but they /all predict the same outcome for a 
given experiment/. Human-centric 'laws of nature' are an illusion. 
<aspect 2> 'Laws of Nature' are filtered through the P-consciousness of 
the observer and verified on that basis.
- - -- - - - - -
Aspect 0> is not relevant just now, to me...Being hell bent on really 
engineering a real artificial general intelligence based on a human as a 
working prototype...The only relevant <aspect 1>s are those that create 
an observer consistent with <aspect 2>, both of which are consistent 
with empirical evidence. i.e. <aspect 1> is justified only if/because 
the first thing it has to do is create/predict an observer that sees 
reality behaving <aspect 2>'ly. The mere existence of other sets that do 
qualify does not entail that all of them are reified. It merely entails 
that we, at the current level of ability, cannot refine <aspect 1> 
enough. IMHO there is only 1 actual <aspect 1>, but that is merely an 
opinion... I am quite happy to accept a whole class of <aspect 1> 
consistent with the evidence - and that predict an 
observer..."Predictability" is the main necessary outcome, not 
absolute/final refined truth.

I'm not entirely sure if your remark was intended to support some kind 
of belief in the reality of multiverses... in the dual aspect science 
(DAS) system belief in such things would be unnecessary meta-belief.  
<aspect 0> might correspond to a theoretical science that examined 
completely different universes.... fun, but a theoretical frolic only. 
Maybe one day we'll be able to make universes. Then it'd be useful. :-)

cheers
colin

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