On 06 Feb 2013, at 10:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/2/6 Stephen P. King <[email protected]>
On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/2/5 Stephen P. King <[email protected]>
Hi,
ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense
is to make it meaningless.
That´s 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
don´t 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.
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.
I agree that causality is 1p, but that makes causality emergent, and
secondary, not fundamental.
We can stop the regression at the place we postulate the theory. I
have explained why arithmetic is a good starting places. It explains
the physical and non physical 1p and 3p, and it explains why we cannot
take less than arithmetic (or Turing equivalent).
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
Arithmetic is enough. It is 3p.
At the end we can not think outside 1p. Scientific inquiry is
comunicable 1p.
If it is communicable, it can be 1p, but it is genuinely 3p too. The
1p part is not relevant, I think. Unless you assume that the whole
arithmetic truth is conscious. That's an open problem, but we don't
need to solve it to extract physics from the "number's dreams".
Because the world of the mind -where we live- is and ever will be
teleological.
OK with this. In a sense, matter is teleological with comp.
Bruno
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.
--
Alberto.
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
