On 2/18/2011 7:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
> Correct me if I am wrong but I think we have established some
> 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
> 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
> laws seem to be obeyed. It is as if there is some equation
> extremes, and we see the result of who wins: universes with
simple laws (few
> possibilities) but random initial conditions (many
> universes with complex or random laws (many possibilities) but
> initial conditions (few possibilities).
> Universes which are ruled by chaotic or unpredictable laws with
> rabbits present probably also prevent life from evolving.
However as you
> mentioned, observers may be part of the initial conditions for
"initial conditions" only come into where you have a temporal
structure, and that only applies to some corners of Platonia
Perhaps consciousness is only possible in universes with a temporal
structure over which the computation within the observer's mind is
> 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
> white rabbits. Our universe's laws seem simple, and life had to
> initial conditions for which there could have been many
> The question should then be, which side of the equation wins out
> Every possible universe has its laws and initial conditions,
> there are many possibilities. The two must be considered
> this universe the initial conditions were chaotic and unordered,
> laws were simple. You propose that universes with chaotic laws
> likely. The most likely of these would be chaotic laws with
Most of Platonia is structured in such a way that there isn't
even a distinction between initial conditions and laws.
How long could an observe exist in such a universe, if at all?
>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.
Perhaps you did not read my message in detail. I acknowledged there
are non-evolved observers in Platonia, however, they require extremely
ordered initial conditions, and, the laws of such universes must be
non-chaotic enough that they aren't immediately destroyed thereafter.
You seem to imagine these universes as operating with causal laws. It
doesn't matter if observers are destroyed immediately since they can
reappear out of chaos later - if the universe even has a time order so
that "immediately" and "later" are defined. It has nothing to do with
initial conditions. Initial conditions are only significant when later
conditions depend on them through causal laws.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at