On Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:24:57 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/27/2013 7:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:06:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 1/27/2013 2:35 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: 
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> I've been following this group a lot. I read it everyday and enjoy all of 
>> the wonderful stuff that comes up, even if some of it tends towards ad 
>> hominem, argument from authority, and petitio principi. Hey, we're humans, 
>> right? That means we get to make these fallacies, in good conscience or 
>> bad. 
>>
>> Anyway, I wondered about what anyone/everyone thought about the notion of 
>> 'chosenness' as a way to understand where we are here in the world. It 
>> seems to me that concepts like MWI, Bruno's comp/mech hypothesis and the 
>> 'dreams of numbers' ideas of subjectivity, and even Leibniz's 'best of all 
>> possible worlds' don't actually do something like flee away from our 
>> everyday responsibility to accept the basic fact that we have been CHOSEN 
>> -- and when I say this, please don't immediately put a bunch of theological 
>> baggage on it. I'm not saying God chose this reality as opposed to another, 
>> although this might be a convenient shorthand. But what I am saying is 
>> that, out of all the staggering possibilities that we know exist with 
>> regards to our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our 
>> society, and even our individual selves, things could have very easily 
>> turned out to be different than they were. The fact that they have turned 
>> out in just this way and not another indicates this kind of chosenness, and 
>> along with it, comes a certain degree of responsibility, I guess? 
>>
>> It seems to me that all the various 'everything' hypotheses (MWI, comp, 
>> Leibniz, and others) try to apply the Copernican principle to its breaking 
>> point. True enough, there is from a purely 3p point of view nothing special 
>> about our cosmic situation re: our planet and our sun. BUT, from an 
>> existential 1p point of view there is a huge privilege that we have, i.e. 
>> we are sentient observers, who love, feel pain, feel desire, and long for 
>> transcendence. 
>>
>>
>> There's a desire to respect the Copernican principle (don't assume we're 
>> 'special') but also to avoid randomness.  This then leads to the hypothesis 
>> that *everything* (in some sense) exists.  That way you avoid randomness 
>> without assuming that we're special.
>>
>>
>> Moreover, the 3p point of view is a pure abstraction, kind of like eating 
>> the picture of a meal rather than the actual meal. How do we know what any 
>> kind of 3p account of truth would be? What would it even look like? A 
>> universe with no observers. A falling tree without a hearer/listener. This, 
>> to me, is nonsense. 
>>
>> Aren't things like MWI of quantum physics and comp hypothesis of 
>> universal dovetailer trying to, at a fundamental and existential level, an 
>> attempt to try to run away from the concreteness and absolute 'givenness' 
>> (gift) of the world as we find it? And isn't our role, in creation, as 
>> freely choosing beings (sorry, John Clark, free will is more than just a 
>> noise) to choose what will make other people with us now and in the future 
>> feel more love and less pain? And isn't this why we were chosen? 
>>
>>
>> To say we're chosen is just another way to avoid randomness.
>>  
>
> To say we are avoiding randomness is to assume that there is something 
> other than randomness to be embraced.
>  
>
> That's what being 'chosen' implies - that there is a 'choser', an 
> alternative teleology to be embraced.
>

There doesn't have to be just one chooser. The universe could be made of 
choosers that can appear random when seen from a distant or incomplete 
frame of reference. But in a universe where there were no choosers, how 
would it be possible for anything to be 'embraced', let alone 
non-randomness?
 

>
>  
> Why should anything that exists want to avoid randomness?
>  
>
> Ask somebody else, I'm not avoiding it.
>

I'm talking about in principle, ontologically, how is it possible for 
anything to 'want to avoid randomness' if there is no ontological 
alternative? 

>
> Brent
>  

-- 
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to