On Sep 21, 12:20 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry to jump in here..

> The Mandelbrot set has a definition which we can use to explore it's  
> properties.  

In this kind of context, I think it is useful to make the distinction
that the Mandlebrot 'set' IS a definition.

Would you say the set was non-existent before Mandelbrot  
> found it?

I would say that it is still non-existent. What exists would be a
graphic representation, for instance, of the results of thousands of
individual function calls which require our visual sense to be grouped
into a set. Our recognition of pattern against the set of generic
iterations of the equation plotted visually is what gives it
explorable properties: The concrete event of the plotting on a screen
or pencil and paper.

>  If we have to define something for it to exist, then what  
> was this universe before there were conscious beings in it?

The universe always has/is/results from awareness.

> > The question of whether or not some     number has some properties  
> > is dependent only on the structure that     defines it, not the  
> > 'discoverer' there of.
> What created the definition of the universe we are in?

Our neurology.

> > Without a separate and concrete space to act an an extrinsic  
> > distinguisher (sorry for the sad wording, a better one is  
> > requested!) of the numbers from each other, no pattern at all can  
> > exist.
> Consider that the game of life is merely a progression of integers,  
> defined by a simple function.  Yet all kinds of patterns and motion  
> are supported.  Now consider a three dimensional game of life: it  
> might enable simple "particles" that move through it's "space".
> > Here the 2-dimensional space of the computer monitor is playing the  
> > role and allows us to contrast the symbols representing the digits,  
> > but I hope that my point is understood.
> It is not what appears to us, but what appears to the beings inside.  
> If you sat at a terminal showing all the bits describing this universe  
> changing over time your viewing of that screen is not necessary for  
> you or I to experience.

But as beings inside our universe, we DO need material interfaces to
see, feel, and think. Our eyeballs are necessary for us to see the
world outside of ourselves. It's not enough that the arithmetic of
visual phenomena exists, we cannot contact it through arithmetic means


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