On 8/29/2012 10:34 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Craig, > > Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate) > because it " excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust "? > Richard
Maybe! One might argue that life in the cosmos is generating an increasing number of possibilities for itself and thus space must exist for the ground (vacuum) states of those. > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com > <mailto: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 > > -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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.
