On Sep 14, 8:51 pm, Mindey <min...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think of a mathematical concept as a type of concept. What makes it
more than a concept?

> 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
> axiomatically.

Can't you just define God as an imaginary number which would, if it
existed, explain all requirements? You don't have to state the
existence of the entity, you can just Let X = {hypothetical entity].
Does the null set exist, or does it just potentially satisfy
conditions if it were to exist?

>
>
>
> > > 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.

Nothingness cannot include origination of anything, even itself.
Nothing does not equal anything, even itself.

>
>
>
> > > 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"
> (http://cosmogonycentral.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-first-cause.html)
> 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.
>

It seems that A = A can only either be tautological or untrue

>
>
>
> > 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.

Causality is fragile, and evaporates predictably under various states
of consciousness. It is essential to cognition, but it is not
necessarily a universal primitive.

>
> 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.

Causality is relevant only in the context of time and space, which is
a matter of perception. Cosmology examines the origins of time and
space, which by definition would not be subject to temporal causality.

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