On 2/23/2011 7:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com <mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> wrote:



    On Feb 18, 3:06 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
    <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:15 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com
    <mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
    >
    > > On Feb 18, 5:30 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
    <mailto: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 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism ?

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.

3. They are spirits.
4. They are concepts.
...

If they are fundamental they just are - that's what it means to be fundamental. Of course we can't *know* they are fundamental even if they are. But having a mathematical (i.e. non-contradictory) description doesn't make them immaterial.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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.

Reply via email to