On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 18:45, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

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).

"Nothingness" (as absence of things) is more than a concept. It is a
mathematical concept - an empty set. It is easy to give an example of
an empty set, but impossible to give an example of God, {that which
explains all
requirements}, because in order to create something that explains all
requirements, you would have to actually show how would that explain
those requirements. You cannot state the existence of such entity

> > 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.

Except for Nothingness! Nothingness *can* originate from nothingness.

> >
> > 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.

In mathematical sense, we use '=' (sign of equality, not equivalence)
to say that the expressions on both sides of the '=' share the same
properties in an agreed-upon sense (i.e., 1+1=2 is valid in sense of
quantities represented, but not in sense of geometric appearance), not
that that they are equivalent. In mathematical sense, the relation of
equivalence is usually denoted as '~' or '≡', and defined as a
reflexive, symmetric and transitive relationship. I didn't read
complete reading the Stephen Anastasi's approach "On first cause"
yet. I think someone needs to formalize his definition of equivalence,
and compare it with the definition used in mathematics. I am quite
certain what he was about defining the sense in which he would use the
term "equivalence" in his further deductions.

> 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.

Denying causality is equivalent to denying logical deduction, such as:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Assuming the first two statements are true, it is possible to
unequivocally deduce the third sentence. If you deny this possibility,
then you are essentially saying that we cannot obtain precise model of
the universe which would allow us to predict its future precisely. I
personally would rather prefer to have a precise model of the
Universe, than the absence of causality and the free will.

> 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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to