On 9/21/2011 9:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 9/21/2011 3:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Craig Weinberg
<whatsons...@gmail.com <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:20 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
Sorry to jump in here..
> The Mandelbrot set has a definition which we can use to
In this kind of context, I think it is useful to make the
that the Mandlebrot 'set' IS a definition.
Then the important question is whether humans had to write it
down for it to exist.
Why is the question of whether some set of properties occur
given some set of rules and the implementation of those rules by
some process tied to the existence or non-existence of an object?
Since when was it even a meaningful question? Is existence a
property? No, it is not!
My point is that existence is independent of our implementing or
discovering such properties. Mandelbrot didn't have to discover the
definition of the Mandelbrot set for the set to have the properties it
has. He only had to discover it for us to learn about some of its
properties. If there is another Mathematical object, and one of its
properties is that it contains self-reproducing patterns which behave
intelligently and form civilizations, we need not find such objects
nor simulate them for those intelligent agents to be.
And my point is that the *properties* cannot be said to be definite
absent specification by equation, rule or equivalent. Existence is not
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
individual function calls which require our visual sense to
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
or pencil and paper.
Yet we have only seen an infinitesimally small part of it. What
ontological status shall we ascribe to the unseen parts?
Currently unknown. ".../what we/ cannot /talk about we/ must
pass over in silence. " or admit that we are only speculating.
The properties are onknown to us, or to you. Doesn't mean it is
unknown to everyone. We know that if we look at a spot we have never
looked at before we will see something. Each time we conduct this
"experiment" we affirm that it existed, even though we had no
confirmation by previously looking at it. Why should we ever assume
it's existence as a complete and coherent structure is unknown?
No, experiments reveal properties, not existence. Again, existence
is not contingent on observation or measurement or anything at all. Thus
the entire question of "does it exist" is a red herring.
> 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.
Then you get into a bootstrap problem. How did the first aware
creation come to be if there was not already some structure with
a previous history during which that creature evolved? Your idea
suggests the universe and its 5 billion history were created when
the first life form opened its eyes.
A bootstrap problem can only occur if there is a boundary that
cannot be overstepped or crossed by some means.
Yes, like evolving a conscious brain without having had an environment
or history of evolution.
Obviously that cannot happen so why bring it up?
Why is it assumed that there had to be a structure with no
prior history that somehow just appears and all else proceeds from
it? We chastise silly creationists for making the same claim!
Who is assuming this?
Existence is eternal,
just because we observe a finite universe does not mean that the
total universe is not infinite or that that finite observed
universe is the totality of existence.
It could be just the simple fact that a finite system (within an
infinite Totality) with finite physical resources can only
resolve a finite universe (which is just a finite subset of the
Totality. Not too complicated at all.
There is no need to concoct weird explanations such as
Singularities and Inflatons and Dark Energy, just use some
observation, logic and a liberal dose of Occam's razor.
This idea is not unlike Wheeler's participatory universe, which I
think has some merit. With Wheeler's idea, however, both
awareness and the universe feed on each other and affect each
other. With your idea it sounds like you think awareness drives
everything. How do you explain the physical laws (the fact that
there are laws at all) if sense and awareness are all that are
You might not have noticed that Craig's thesis is symmetric
with respect to "sense" and "thing". He calls them the Omni and
the Acme, if I recall correctly.
Sounds like the pre-established harmony of Leibniz.
Which explains very little, besides "Well that's how God decided it
/smile. I recall pointing that out to Craig in a phone chat I had
some time ago, but you are completely missing Craig's thesis.
> > The question of whether or not some number has some
> > is dependent only on the structure that defines it,
> > 'discoverer' there of.
> What created the definition of the universe we are in?
Our neurology is contingent on the universe. What I was asking
is if we need to define everything in order that it exist, how
can we explain our own existence? Obviously things can exist
independently of our mathematical definitions or discoveries.
Our universe being a case in point.
We are aware of only a tiny sliver of what exists.
Naive realism is a form of hysterical blindness, IMHO.
Idealism, in contrast to realism, says what we are blind of does not
This notion that somehow the existence of an entity is linked to
its properties is worse than fallacious. It is dumb.
An object might have two mutually incompatible properties, which
implies it cannot exist anywhere.
So if it cannot exist, because it is self-contradictory how can it
haev any properties at all? Existence is prior to properties.
> > 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
> > exist.
> Consider that the game of life is merely a progression of
> defined by a simple function. Yet all kinds of patterns
> are supported. Now consider a three dimensional game of
> might enable simple "particles" that move through it's "space".
> > Here the 2-dimensional space of the computer monitor is
> > role and allows us to contrast the symbols representing
> > but I hope that my point is understood.
> It is not what appears to us, but what appears to the
> If you sat at a terminal showing all the bits describing
> changing over time your viewing of that screen is not
> you or I to experience.
But as beings inside our universe, we DO need material
see, feel, and think.
What is material but its relation to other material in this universe?
Correct, but the kind of relation that it is matters, literally!
Our eyeballs are necessary for us to see the
world outside of ourselves. It's not enough that the
visual phenomena exists, we cannot contact it through
A being that evolved eyes in the game of life could respond to
the reception of "game of life photons" just as we do to our
photons. You would then have to admit that this being can see
(or perhaps you would not, since you have finally admitted your
belief in zombies).
Umm, where in the rules of the Game of Life is there an
analogue of a photon?
A glider could be seen seen in a similar way to a photon. There could
be a system which can register the impact of a glider and convey and
process this information, just like a cone cell in the retina can. In
previous posts I showed how Turing machines have already been
implemented in GoL, so it is possible to have thinking feeling beings
in the GoL if you accept mechanism.
The game merely states somethign like "if your neighboring cell is
empty do change to x state".
At the lowest level of physics, there might be a similarly simple set
There is no photon there as this 'neighborhood state detection
system depends on a global synchronization of the cell detections
Our physics is also local. (With Everett)
thus there is no signal delay nor permittivity and permeability
There is a signal delay: information can only move one cell at a
time. Similarly photons can only move one Plank length in one Plank time.
One would have to radically alter the rules of the GoL to make
photon facsimiles appear.
A Turing machine in the game of life could produce any simulated
I look forward to shaking hands with these folks. When will the GoL
creatures attempt communication with us?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at