On Feb 23, 3:02 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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
> Are you suggesting some form
> In any case, it seems there are two ways a line of questioning could end:
> What is life made out of? Cells. What are cells made out of? Chemicals.
> What are chemicals made out of? Atoms. What are atoms made out of?
> Quarks. What are Quarks made out of? Vibrating strings. What are strings
> made out of?
> 1. We don't know and can't say.
> 2. They are mathematical objects.
> If matter is required for life how do you know matter isn't composed of
> something more fundamental?
How do you know that "primary matter" doesn't label whatever is
whether currently understood or not.
> > > > > 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
> > all,
> > so the chance of glimpsing one should be high
> The question is what is bigger:
> (Number of orderly universes * Expected number of observers in such a
> universe) vs. (Number of chaotic universes * Number of observers in such a
> Based on observations I have concluded the terms on the left must be
Well...it's not a black-and-white distinction between order and chaos.
There are more
completely chaotic universes than ordered ones, and there are almost
as many almost
chaotic universes as completely chaotic ones. Let's split a universe
into an ordered part and a chaotic part (either of which can be null
to preserve generality).
Then we can match up
1 oberserver observing order
1 observer observing chaos
2 oberservers observing order
2 observers observing chaos.
etc ad infinitum.
However, there are more ways of being chaotic than there are of being
out of each of these pairs there will be more "observing chaos"
> You have concluded the terms on the right must be larger and then
> made other conclusions based on that. I think any determination as to which
> is larger would require evaluating the UDA very deeply, and having an
> understanding of exactly what information patterns lead to conscious
> observers (or something to that effect). We are very far (technology wise)
> from running the UDA that deeply, I think.
> > > > >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
> > much chaos.
> Without laws there can be no meaningful computation, there will be only
> random bit flips. Random bit flips can not be used to build more complex
> computations or information representations. The information embodied by a
> random bit flip never goes beyond the impact to that single bit. Since I
> think computation and information are necessities of consciousness I have
> trouble seeing a universe without any laws producing an observer.
You stated "computation and information" as though
they are the same, but whilst you cannot have computation
in a timeless snapshot, you can have information--as much as you like.
Consciousness introspectively seems to exist moment-by-moment,
so it seems *not* to require a certain amount of time to pass.
> > >, 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.
> Does your theory of consciousness allow observers to exist in a universe
> without any laws?
A snapshot of me whilst I am conscious (not asleep) could
exist in such a universe. What would mean that I am not
equally conscious, if my brain state is identical? I suppose
you could say my consc. globally supervenes on the whole
universe, not just my brain state, but then why am I not
conscious of the whole universe? You can rescue any theory
with arbitrary hypotheses, but arbitrariness does not make
good explanation. The MUH advertises itself as lacking
"free variable". As such. it should not make too many
assumptions about consc.
> > > > >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.
> > There are
> > many others
> Do you consider the observer as part of his environment, or existing
> independently from it?
"Part of" and "Independent" need definition.
> If the observer is part of the environment, how is the disorder of the
> sensory input separated from the order in the observers mind,
The whole point of seeing a white rabbit is that a previously
ordered series of impression becomes disordered. But there is no
reason to suppose that I would become instantly unconscious
and mindless as soon as I see something surreal--that would
be another unwarranted black-and-white assumption. Seeing WRs
is a process of gradually encroaching craziness.
> and how did
> the observer come to be? Are you considering some type of Boltzmann Brain?
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
For more options, visit this group at