Peter, Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some things we agree on:
Consciousness is informational There are more ways to have disorder than order Bayesian reasoning is a good approach in matters of truth The universe could be a second old, and we would have no way of telling White rabbits are not commonly seen This universe appears to follow laws having a short description Evolution requires non-chaotic universes Where I think we disagree is on assumptions related to measure, of a universe's initial conditions vs. a universe's laws. I agree there are very many possibilities for what my next moment of experience might bring, yet of all the strange things I could observe, the universe doesn't often surprise, laws seem to be obeyed. It is as if there is some equation balancing two extremes, and we see the result of who wins: universes with simple laws (few possibilities) but random initial conditions (many possibilities) vs. universes with complex or random laws (many possibilities) but with ordered initial conditions (few possibilities). Universes which are ruled by chaotic or unpredictable laws with white rabbits present probably also prevent life from evolving. However as you mentioned, observers may be part of the initial conditions for such a universe. There are many possibilities for the laws, but few possibilities for the initial conditions. Our universe does not seem to be that way, however, owing to the lack of white rabbits. Our universe's laws seem simple, and life had to evolve from initial conditions for which there could have been many possibilities. The question should then be, which side of the equation wins out most often? Every possible universe has its laws and initial conditions, for which there are many possibilities. The two must be considered together. For this universe the initial conditions were chaotic and unordered, but the laws were simple. You propose that universes with chaotic laws are more likely. The most likely of these would be chaotic laws with chaotic initial conditions, but I think we agree life and observers are not likely to arise in this case, so the remaining possibility is chaotic laws with ordered initial conditions (which can admit observers at the start). If the possibilities for initial conditions wins out by having more combinations than random (yet stable enough to be supportive of observers present at the initial conditions) laws, then this could explain the lack of observed white rabbits in the whole of mathematical reality. Do you agree with the logic at least? > > > Einstein believed this, which is evident in this "The distinction between > > past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion". > > > > See:http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/ > > > > > That our > > > > universe is conceivable as a static four dimensional block is > supportive > > > of > > > > the theory that it is a mathematical object. > > > > > But there is an appearance of flow, and if mind isn't flowing > > > because brain isn't flowing, where is it coming from? > > > > The brain generates the illusion of flow. > > I can't see how it could, when it has no flow itself. > Do you think the subjective perception of time rules out block time, or would you say block time is indistinguishable from 3 spacial dimensions which evolve over time? I have a thought experiment to show a physical flow of time can in no way be necessary for the perception of the flow of time. Let's say there are two theories: Presentism (only the present moment is real, and every moment in time has its chance at being the present) vs. Block time (all points in time exist and are equally real). Presentism makes the appearance of the flow of time obvious. It seems like time is flowing because it is in fact flowing. However, upon deeper consideration you will see that it refutes this relation. If only the present time is real, then what you experience in this moment must have no dependence whatsoever on the existence of prior moments (since they no longer exist). You perceive the existence of time's flow from the existence of this single slice of time. Since the existence of past moments has no bearing on your experience in this moment, however, then it becomes absolutely needless to say the past moment must cease to exist to give the appearance of the flow of time. Rather, if it still continued to exist, it must (according to Presentism) have no impact at all on what you feel now in the present. Therefore even if all moments in time remain real, your experience of the flow of time would be intact. It is, by Occam, simpler to believe that past moments continue to exist, rather than believe some process causes future moments to come into existence, and past moments to disappear from existence, since without such a process, observations will be identical. > It's like saying that a brain with no colour processing > centres can nonetheless halucinate in colour. Even > illusions require some real basis. > The brain is able to generate color from colorless photons, music from oscillations in air pressure. Certainly at time t1 the brain can anticipate it will acquire new information at t2, this is where the basis comes from, but the anticipation for the brain at t1 isn't fulfilled in the same way it is represented to the mind. The brain as it exists in t1 remains in t1. > If there is flow, and you can't perceive it, that is obviously > a problem. However, if there isn't flow, why would it be an > advantage to hallucinate it? > To provide a motivation to get a drink of water when you feel thirsty. Without the threat of future thirst, or the promise of future relief, there is no motivation to act. Would you still go to work knowing the you (stuck in that time) will not get to enjoy spending the earnings? > > > Sure. If we know we put it in an unreal environment, > > > we know its environment is unreal. > > > > So how do you know we aren't in an "unreal" environment? > > Occam's razor > The simulation argument makes a case that virtual realities are more common than primitively physical ones. This is already the case for our own universe (Think of all the computer games that have been made) the only difference is we haven't begun to fill those virtual realities with conscious observers. If humanity uploads its minds into computers, you may for recreation experience what it was like to be one of your ancestors. If the average person does this more than 10 or so times during the course of their very long lifespan, then simulated human lives greatly outnumber primitively physical lives. Therefore, the idea that this universe is a simulation is not so ridiculous that it can be dismissed outright. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.