On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is debatable. nobody has found, nor can found, example of primitive > matter. > Unlike the proton and neutron nobody has found any experimental evidence that the electron has a inner structure, that it is made of parts. > Now, it is easy, when assuming comp, to have example of consciousnes > without *primitive* matter, > But then its odd that in the "illusion" we live our lives in consciousness is ALWAYS linked with matter. > consciousness, to be relatively manifestable, introduced a separation > between me and not me, > In the "illusion" my body is always linked with my consciousness but a rock is not unless the rock interacts with my body, a very odd illusion if consciousness is more fundamental than matter, and odd the illusion is so persistent and universal. >> 3) I dunno and will never know. (What are the first hundred digits of >> Chaitin's Omega Constant?) >> > > > This one, you can know, if you are patient enough. But you will not know > it and also know that you know it > True in a way. It's very unlikely but a random number generator could spit it out but it would not do you any good because you'd have no way of knowing it is Chaitin's Omega Constant. > Chaitin's constant can be computed *in the limit*. Its decimal will > stabilize, you just don't know when. > It can't be computed in a finite number of years. To calculate the first 100 digits of Chaitin's constant you'd need to feed all programs that can be expressed in 100 bits or less into a Turing Machine and see how many of them stop and how many of then do not. Some of them will never stop but the only way to know how many is to wait a infinite number of years and then see how many programs are still running. So you'd need to be infinitely patient, in other words you'd need to be dead. >> Although meaningful the question has no answer. (Why is there something >> rather than nothing?) >> > > > OK, but the question can be reduced to "why there are natural numbers > obeying addition and multiplication law" > Lawrence Krauss in his book "A Universe From Nothing" says that someday something close to that might actually be possible. > > A physical event without a cause or a reason does not make much sense to > me (and makes no sense with comp). > Of course it doesn't make sense, it's in the nature of the beast. If it made sense that would mean you knew the reason behind it but if it's truly random there is no reason behind it. It doesn't make sense that X came to be, that is to say you don't understand it because there is nothing to understand, X came to be for no reason. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
