On 1/28/2013 5:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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 
        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 
        'chosenness' as a way to understand where we are here in the world. It 
        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 
        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 
        selves, things could have very easily turned out to be different than 
        were. The fact that they have turned out in just this way and not 
        indicates this kind of chosenness, and along with it, comes a certain 
        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 
        point. True enough, there is from a purely 3p point of view nothing 
        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

        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 
        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 

        Aren't things like MWI of quantum physics and comp hypothesis of 
        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 
        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 
    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 do they then make a random choice? And how do they effect this choice? And where do they appear? It seems you are just spinning fairy tales.

But in a universe where there were no choosers, how would it be possible for anything to be 'embraced', let alone non-randomness?

Before QM, determinism was embraced by many thinkers.

    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?

Why do you think there is no alternative? You've introduced 'choice' which I assume you consider non-random.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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