On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter, > > Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some things we > agree on: > > Consciousness is informational No
> There are more ways to have disorder than order Yes > 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 Sort of. > White rabbits are not commonly seen Yes > This universe appears to follow laws having a short description Yes > 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. "initial conditions" only come into where you have a temporal structure, and that only applies to some corners of Platonia > 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, Most of Platonia is structured in such a way that there isn't even a distinction between initial conditions and laws. >but I think we agree life and observers are not likely to arise > in this case, I keep pointing out that "it coudn't evolve, so it doesn't exist" doesn't apply to Platonia. Everything non contradictory exists there. Being contradictory is the only barrier to Platonic existence. >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. I don't see why ordered initial conditions would win out. > 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 [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.
