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
        <mailto: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
        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 contingent. Period.

        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.

    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 should be"

/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,
        not the
        > > 'discoverer' there of.
        > What created the definition of the universe we are in?

        Our neurology.

    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.

I agree.

    Naive realism is a form of hysterical blindness, IMHO.

Idealism, in contrast to realism, says what we are blind of does not exist.

    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
        all can
        > > exist.
        > Consider that the game of life is merely a progression of
        > 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.

    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
        arithmetic of
        visual phenomena exists, we cannot contact it through
        arithmetic means

    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 of rules.

    There is no photon there as this 'neighborhood state detection
    system depends on a global synchronization of the cell detections
    and transitions,

Our physics is also local. (With Everett)

    thus there is no signal delay nor permittivity and permeability
    functions involved.

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 environment.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to