On Sep 14, 3:52 pm, Mindey <min...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 00:13, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
>
> >  On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >  On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
> > enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
> > questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?
>
> 1. Anything more than "Nothingness" requires explanation of its own
> existence.[1]

I disagree. Nothingness is a linguistic conception. No-thing is an a
posteriori idea - a negated reflection of 'thingness', which must
exist a priori to nothingness. If nothingness could actually 'exist'
it's only manifestation could be in the absence of any potential for
existence whatsoever. Therefore there can be no 'road' in or out of
nothingness. It is by definition that which can allow no existence.

It is only because of our biased perspective as specific physical
phenomena participating in existence that we might imagine that
nothing requires no explanation. The concept of nothingness is a
symbol which points to the idea of {that which requires no
explanation} just as God is a symbol of {that which explains all
requirements} (among other things).

> 2. Very simple programs can be Universal Turing Machines. An example of one:
> [2]
>
> => One of the very simple programs must have somehow originated from
> Nothingness.

Nothing can originate from nothingness. Programs are only seem simple
to us because they, like 'nothingness' are cognitive abstractions.
They are the condensed sensorimotive expressions of vast, complex
intellects which require vast perceptual capacities to make sense of
them. Turing machines cannot exist independently of matter, even if
that matter is our brain. Like a virus, it has no self-interpretation
and relies on a host for it's enactments.

>
> But How? [3]

Equivalence is also a cognitive phantom with no concrete independence.
It's an understanding of feelings we have about what certain feelings
have in common. It's not an entity. To say that A = A is a matter of
how stringently you want to interpret the '='. The 'first' A is a set
of pixels that is to the left of the equals sign pixels, while the
second A is to the right of the =. I could make the second one bold or
change it's color and it would not change the first A. Not only are
they not A, they aren't even related to each other except to the
narrow set of pattern recognizing phenomena which read English letters
and understand mathematics and are willing to accept the idea that one
thing can be another thing.

The way I see First Cause is that causality itself is an invention. It
is not primitive. We are biased because while we read this, we are
awake and we are humans, so we are 'on the clock'. If instead, we are
to look at the first causes of our own autobiographical cosmology, or
even in the content of our hypnopompic (waking) moments, we find no
'nothingness' or equivalence, few structures, boundaries, or laws -
rather our autobiographical cosmos emerges out of lawless, boundary-
less, structureless amnesia.

The psyche seems to find it completely natural to spend it's waking
days in feverish maintenance of structure and long-term investments of
concentrated efforts, only to relinquish them all willingly every
night to hallucination and oblivion. To try to project our adult
consciousness back into an orderly sequence to explain how exactly we
wake up or how it is to be conceived is to confront the limitations of
consciousness itself. This is what happens to causality when you look
for it's origin. By definition, it can't originate, because to
originate a sequence is to cause and a cause is already causality. The
cause of causality then is like the flavor of flavor or the feeling of
feeling - a linguistic concept with no tangible referent.

To me it seems best to understand the beginning of the universe as the
same thing as the end of the universe - a singularity out of which
order emerges. Not nothingness but thingness, and more importantly,
the experienceness of thingness. That is what needs no explanation
because it precedes the division of anything from anything else so
there is nothing that is not already explained. Explanation can only
be conceived of outside of the singularity where things can perceive
some phenomena but not others, so that they want to translate the
unknown into their native experience.

Craig

-- 
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