On Feb 18, 3:06 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> 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
> Perhaps consciousness is only possible in universes with a temporal
> structure over which the computation within the observer's mind is feasible.
Maybe it's only possible in universes made of matter
> > > 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.
> How long could an observe exist in such a universe, if at all?
Why is that important? There are an awful lot of such universes, after
so the chance of glimpsing one should be high
> > >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
No they don't. They don't require anything to evolve, and they
don't need to be embedded in ordered universes since
there is no contradiction in so much order being bolted onto so
>, and, the laws of such universes must be non-chaotic
> enough that they aren't immediately destroyed thereafter.
They don't necessarily have any laws.
> > >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.
> Right, I think that disordered initial conditions win out. Which is why
> evolution is the most common path to observers. Observers aren't present in
> the disordered initial conditions, but follow because the ordered laws are
> just right.
You are commiting a False Dichotomy fallacy
There are degrees of order and disorder. One of the intermediate
degrees is a union of Ordered Observer and Chaotic Everything Else.
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