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. :-)
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