On 2/6/2013 4:22 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/2/6 Stephen P. King <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/2/5 Stephen P. King <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Hi,
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
response.
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.
Cheers
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.
Cheers,
K
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
