On 2/6/2013 4:22 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/2/6 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

    On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

    2013/2/5 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net


            ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
        sense is to make it meaningless.

    Thatæ„€ it.

    But to insist into make the question in 3p may  force the
    introduction of an implicit  1p that contemplate the 3p, that is,
     a metamind , with a metatime etc. (To avoid pavlovian responses,
    i donæ„’ mention the G. world). That is the meaning of my previous

    Hi Alberto,

        But the meta versions would be 1p's in their own right, no?

Absolutely. Not only when talking about purpose. Most of the concepts we use are 1p, so it is supposed that they are meaningless when used in the description of a multiverse . Precisely because the multiverse is a design with the explicit goal of eliminate purpose as an axiom.

Dear Alberto,

I would not word it in such a harsh term (unless one is critiquing an eliminatist like Dennett). Physics requires that we trace out the 'individuality' (stochasticity?) of the individual elements of an ensemble to get a well behaved sample.

But at the end, as I mentioned, this goal is not possible, because we can not avoid the infinite regression in the search for causes, and causality is 1p indeed. Se inadvertently, when we talk about what exist and what do not exist in a multiverse, we turn into looking at an implicit 1p designer of the multiverse

I agree, we might avoid this regress by considering an interactive model or one that allows for regress to be contained, such as what is the case in non-well founded set based models. It is when one tries to create a model that forces global consistency for a single point of view that is problematic; so why not stop trying?

At the end we can not think outside 1p. Scientific inquiry is comunicable 1p. Because the world of the mind -where we live- is and ever will be teleological.

Yes, the world of *a* mind (not stated first person singular!) is teleological, as each mind must have a prior sense of being in the world to know of itself. This is why Pratt changes "Cogito, ergo sum" into "Cogito, ergo eram" - I think, therefore I was. Logic's arrow points against the flow of time.

        On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

            Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie
            not really.


            On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:

                So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or
                merely a dominant FUNCTION? The blind exercise of
                function doesn't seem to me to include the global
                concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my
                only gripe with it. I could be wrong.





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