On 9/22/2011 1:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 9/21/2011 11:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

    On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:11 PM, "Stephen P. King"
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    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 distinction
            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.

    I agree existence is not contingent.  But I go further and say
    the properties of those extant things is not contingent either.

        Could you please explain to us how that claim is consistent
    with the mutual non-commutativity of canonical conjugate variables
    (aka properties) in QM?

        AFAIK, a wave function or state vector, absent the
    specification of a measurement basis must be considered to be in a
    state where all of its observable properties are in a state of
    linear superposition, this they are 'indefinite" and thus it
    follow that they are indeed contingent on the specification of a
    basis. Where am I going wrong?

This uncertainty of properties is an artifact of observation, more specifically Quantum Mechanics is a consequence of the observer's inability to self locate within an infinite structure. See:

I never quite understood how the non-commutativity of certain observables with respect to each other and the Pontryagin duality (manifesting as a Fourier transform for example) between discrete and compact spaces (inducing basis vectors) follows just from the inability to self locate. It seems to me that it is the introduction of the Hilbert space and its linear algebraic structure that induces the uncertainty. The inability to self-locate seems to just be consistent with the 'no preferred basis" aspect.
    I would like to read Russell's comment on this.

The objects in the individual branches have properties, it is only we observers who are uncertain of them. (We don't know which branch, or which one of us, we are in or are)
I did not notice anything new in this paper, by Aguirre et al, that Russell didn't cover in his paper.

            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

    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.

    This is what I have been saying!
        My apologies for misunderstanding your claim.

    Thus the entire question of "does it exist" is a red herring.

    There are many people, even on this list, who would say most
    possible worlds do not exist.  So there is a reason to affirm the
    existence of things we cannot see or define, for we cannot see
    nor define everything.

        So, what difference does their belief make to whether
    something exists or not? This would be a nice example of a Bp&~p.

None, but we are trying to explain our positions to others, so it is not meaningless or pointless to suggest things like "everything exists".

I make a big deal about statements of existence because a lot of people think of the term as if it is denoting a property, like redness or velocity. Properties go to the content of experience and must not be considered as seperate from at least the potential of observation. Existence, per se, has no such contingencies.

            >  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?

    Craig brought it up. (see above) "this unuverse results from

            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 required?

            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.

    Perhaps it would help me and others on this list to understand it
    if you provided us with your understanding of his thesis.
        It is not muy job to explain Craig's thesis to you. That is
    his job. I got claims of my own to defend and correct if mistaken.

Okay. I only brought it up because you pointed out I was completely missing Craig's thesis. I thought you might have some insight as to how or why that you could share.

Sure, let us consider this similarity to Leibniz' "per-established harmony" idea. Could you sketch your thoughts on the similarity that you see? I have my own thoughts about pre-established harmony, but I see, in Craig's ideas, other concepts similar to those of Leibniz that do relate to a notion of "harmony" and other somewhat unrelated concepts but not necessarily include the "pre-established" aspect. I haev an argument against the concept of "pre-established" as Leibniz uses it.




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