On 02 Oct 2012, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any meta-molecular system is going to be complex compared to a molecular system,

That's what "meta" means, and a very big thing is larger than a big thing.

Once a theory is rich enough (like the L machine), it can serve as its own meta-theory. That's the key of comp.

That's how the comp ontology (numbers and their laws) entails its own many interpretations, in some precise sense, somehow in the mind of the many universal numbers.

That sense is akin to how Everett QM seems to justify its statistical interpretation, which I think partially follows from Gleason Theorem (the probability measure is entailed somehow by the Hilbert space structure, for the dimension bigger than three).

If comp is true, and if the Theaetical definition of knowledge is reasonable, the arithmetical quantum logic (the four material hypostases)should be constrained enough to have ortholattice semantics making, similarly to QM, the comp measure (on the sigma_1 sentences, or 'pieces of computation') unique. Comp lacks its "Gleason theorem" to verify this.

Comp entails a relative state interpretation of arithmetic (or of any other first order specification of a Turing universal system).


> The inorganic geology of the Earth as a whole is much more complex than a single cell

Bullshit!! Geology may be large but if we're talking complexity it's finger painting compared to the smallest cell.
> Darwin wasn't trying to explain awareness itself.

That was part of Darwin's genius, picking the right problem to work on. He knew that explaining awareness was out of reach in his day as it is in ours so he didn't waste his time trying, he also knew that explaining the origin of life was out of reach although it's starting to become so in our day. Darwin figured that the problem of how a self reproducing organism could diversify into a bewildering number of species, one of which had a very large brain and opposable thumbs, might be within reach for a man of sufficient talent in his day. And He was right.

> There is no bridge however from evolution of biological forms and functions to the origin of experience,

I might not know exactly how that bridge operates but I know that such a bridge between experience and intelligence MUST exist because otherwise experience could not have evolved on this planet; and it has, at least once for certain, and probably billions of times.

> It [Evolution] offers no hint of why complex intelligence should be living organisms and not mineral-based mechanisms.

If you'd read the post that I sent TWICE in the month of September you'd know that Darwin's theory does explain why that is, but the post was rather long and it did contain a few big words and so you didn't read it and prefer to keep asking the same questions over and over.

> > Before long one generation of computers will design the next more advanced generation, and the process will accelerate exponentially.

> Maybe. My guess is that in 50 years, someone will still be saying the same thing.

Somebody will be saying that in 50 years no doubt about it, but the someone won't be biological.

> If tools couldn't do something that people can't then there would be no point in them making tools. And water vapor can't smash your house but water vapor can make a tornado and a tornado can.

> But water vapor can't make tools no matter how fast it's moving or for how long. We can choose to make tools which extend the power of our intentions

There are reasons that water vapor makes tornadoes and there are reasons that humans make tools.

>> Biology doesn't have any cosmic purpose for existing, but there are reasons.

> Are there?


> Like what?

I've answered this before: Chemistry, a planet with liquid water, a energy source like the sun, and lots of time. There is no purpose in any of that because intelligence is in the purpose conferring business not chemistry or water or energy or time. So there is no purpose to biology but there are reasons.

  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 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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to