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 <whatsons...@gmail.com>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, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 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 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.
>

-- 
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