On 14 Nov 2011, at 19:27, compscicrackpot wrote:

I wasn't satisfied by the ideas I was able to derive about the
universe from consciousness when assuming that they are similar
phenomena, but this afternoon I attempted the reverse and found it
much more fruitful.

What do you mean by "universe"? is it the physical universe, or reality?

With mechanism, the physical universe is the border of reality, as seen by internal machines. it is a projection, and appearance.

For "reality" we need nothing more than a universal system (in Church sense). The other realities (physical, psychological, etc.) are given by any universal system (like the natural number + addition and multiplication) when seen from inside (first person points oif view describe by arithmetical self-reference).



What consciousness and the universe have in common is that they are
logically impossible, and yet they are.

Logically impossible? You are confusing "not necessary" with "impossible". To make something impossible you have to derive a contradiction.



The universe seems logically to result from an infinite regression of
causes and mechanisms and yet it simply is, undeniably,

Like the arithmetical reality. It is not provable from lesser theory, but this doesn't make it contradictory.



what I
realised is that the conscious self also results from seeming infinite
regressions also, there is an infinite regression of homunculi in
their cartesian theatres, and yet the homunculus in the cartesian
theatre simply is. "I" is a singularity.

Computer science gives tools to handle in a finite way the infinite regressions. (Kleene's theorem)

The self-reference logics I am using to derive quanta and qualia from arithmetic are based on such an elimination of infinite regression, as they have been used in the foundation of math for eliminating paradoxes involving regression due to self-reference. What you call singularity here, as far as I understand you, are called fixed point in computer science semantic algebra.

The basic key idea consists in applying a duplicator D to itself, as you can easily see: if Dx gives xx (duplication), then DD gives DD.

Bruno







I thought that was interesting, anyway.

--
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 .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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