Craig, Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate) because it " excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust "? Richard
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Roger, > > Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the beginning. > Any system whose output is unreadable to another system will be > indeterminate and non-computable to it, but that doesn't imply > subjectivity. Subjectivity can only be an inherent possibility in all > possible universes - and, I suggest is is perpetually the least likely > possibility in any given universe. This means that subjectivity itself is > the alpha and omega continuum, the band which underlies all possibility, > from which the illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm > perturbations in the frequency band. > > I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics, > information theory, consciousness, and religion. > > Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of infinitely > divisible states of disconnection within a single monad of 0.00...1% > entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...) means it is a floating > constant. The singularity of the band, the monad, perpetually defines the > extremes of signal and entropy possibilities while the objects form at the > public center of space and the subjects inform at the private edge of > 'time'. > > I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of > accumulating qualitative significance attributed to the totality (monad) > which balances the observed inflation of entropy in the universe of public > space I call solitropy. The universe is a significance machine that > excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust. > > Craig > > > On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi Craig Weinberg >> >> I agree. >> >> Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: >> >> Cs = subject + object >> >> The subject is always first person indeterminate. >> Being indeterminate, it is not computable. >> >> QED >> >> >> Roger Clough, [email protected] >> 8/29/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Craig Weinberg >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 >> *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary >> >> This sentence does not speak English. >> >> These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves. >> >> s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 >> >> >> If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate >> that form is not inherently informative. >> >> The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as >> ascertaining the origin of awareness. >> >> Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless >> epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation >> can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular >> category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. >> >> Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what >> Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp >> contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively >> assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G锟斤拷del >> (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course >> agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be >> complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect >> that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, >> but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that >> this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining >> consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a >> priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. >> >> Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of >> awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or >> that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary >> indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place >> and *why* is has not been addressed at all. >> >> As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to >> demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative >> assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another >> thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure >> up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not >> follow from quanta. >> >> Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of >> sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining >> shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would >> necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between >> channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial >> frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the >> entropy of the totality. >> >> Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from >> either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, >> for direct participation? >> >> Craig >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/** >> msg/everything-list/-/**OP7M4cmbaCIJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OP7M4cmbaCIJ> >> . >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >> googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >> . >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gCCMCgPvNLIJ. > 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. > -- 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.
