Hi Andrie, Sounds like Hawking is coming full circle, getting philosophical. The anthropic principle is cool, but I tend to prefer the holographic universe idea. We are now getting evidence to support it.
Cheers, Mark On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:44 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > Good quality, John, very analytikal, this caught my eye > > the fine-tuning problem (Hawking's name for the beast) > > > quote, Jc > > I don't believe that everything came from nothing. I wonder if this > "everything" had a beginning. I mean, "beginning" is a term of human > valuation - based upon our perspective of being born. And much of what we > see of life follows this pattern. But "everything" is a much bigger thing > than the mere lives that adorn it. It's like the same issue I had with Mr. > James and his "multiverse". When you have a collection of them, then we > simply have a bigger universe that contains various aspects, one in which > we > dwell and have our being. On the other hand, since they lie outside the > realm of possible experience, why even postulate their existence? Doesn't > sound pragmatic to me. > > Neither does asking what came before the big bang? It's a stupid > question, > because we're so entirely logically incapable of thinking outside the > context of our cosmos. The way it seems to me, just conceptualizing the > relationships of the cosmos we're IN, is an infinite game that we have no > hope of finishing. But when we get that done, then we can talk about that > which is outside the big enchilada. Or how big it is compared to other > possible enchiladas. > > > Hawking, quote on fine tuning,.. > > Along with Thomas Hertog at CERN, in 2006 Hawking proposed a theory of > "top-down cosmology," which says that the universe had no unique initial > state, and therefore it is inappropriate for physicists to attempt to > formulate a theory that predicts the universe's current configuration from > one particular initial state.[20] [[[[ Top-down cosmology posits that > in > some sense, the present "selects" the past from a superposition of many > possible histories. In doing so, the theory suggests a possible resolution > of the fine-tuning question: It is inevitable that we find our universe's > present physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those > past histories that led to the present conditions. ]]]]]]In this way, > top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find > ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking an > ensemble of multiple universes. > > -------- > > > the fine-tuning question, Answer by Hawking stephen. > TOTAL HARMONY WITH THE ANTROPIC PRINCIPLE, (not entropic) > > ISOLATED BETWEEN HOOKS > > > > Adrie, one has no obligation to accept it , but if you think of it , the > briljance in the line is just incredible. > and i have to give him credit for his black hole evaporation work. > > Greetz, Adrie > > > > 2010/10/8 John Carl <[email protected]> > > > g'day Ham, > > > > > > > If epistemology necessitates > > >> hierarchy, then I disagree with you and Mr. Pirsig both. > > >> > > > > > > The existential dichotomy is Sensibility/Being, and "co-dependent > > arising" > > > may be another way of expressing the dualistic ontogeny of creation. > > Either > > > expression presupposes a primary source or "first cause" which, in my > > > philosophy, is Essence. Epistemology does not necessitate hierarchy, > but > > it > > > does necessitate a metaphysical source. I lay no claim to knowledge of > > > "triadic signs". > > > > > > > > John: Well, pardon me for my ignorance, but to start with, I'd define > > sensibility as being, so how can they be a dichotomy? But if I can use > the > > labels of subject and object, aren't we talking about the same thing? > For > > to me, this self and other is the dualistic ontogeny of existence. > > "Creation" is a bit too high-falutin' for my taste. It implies a Creator > > and all, and I don't "go there" - at least not at such a basic > > level.(metaphysics as opposed to religious formulation). > > > > Ham: > > > > Either expression presupposes a primary source or "first cause" which, in > > my > > philosophy, is Essence. Epistemology does not necessitate hierarchy, but > > it > > does necessitate a metaphysical source. I lay no claim to knowledge of > > "triadic signs". > > > > John: > > > > "first cause" is a bit problematic for me also. (I'm a guy with a lot of > > problems!) "Cause" is such a nebulous term. Such a useful, subjective > > tool. But it's too subjective. Any given cause is an arbitrary choice > > from > > such a tremendous field of possible differing facts, which could also > > logically be called "a cause" that I'd chime in with Pirsig that for any > > given phenomena, an infinite number of causes (hypothetically speaking) > is > > possible. > > > > So to turn around and assign this arbitrary and subjective way of seeing > > things - and use it to prove or demonstrate something so fundamental and > > transcendant of human experience, seems to me like hubris and logical > > foolishness all in one blow. > > > > And the other problem with "creation" is that it cuts off dialogue with > too > > many people, right off. Such a variety of religious views or even > strong > > anti-religious stances amongst people! So "creator/creation is > > problematic > > on that level, as well. I liked "the whole enchilada", but it sounds a > bit > > frivolous, I admit. > > > > I'm not that studied in semiotics either. But I do know this about > "signs" > > that when I explore and find from different places, similar signs > pointing > > me in a direction, then I conclude that there is some Quality reason > behind > > the congruence. > > > > > > > [John, previously]: > > > > > > But even moreso, Ham, the only thinking Descartes did was > > >> in concepts provided by his culture - is the point Pirsig made. > > >> > > > > > > [Ham, previously]: > > > > > > I disagree. The only "concept" Descartes was concerned with > > >> was: What is provable beyond all doubt?" Things and events > > >> could be mere illusions, tricks played on him by a deceitful god. > > >> All that he knew for a certainty was that he himself was the > > >> Knower of these things. > > >> > > > > > > > > John: And what is doubt, Ham? What is doubt? It's the opposite of > 'peace > > of mind', I'd say. Some instinct or intuition that keeps one asking, > > seeking. When is it satisfied? That's almost an entirely subjective > > thing. But the object of enquiry IS the subject, no? So obviously this > > verbal trick Descartes has used on himself, is shallow and ill-conceived. > > Perhaps it was appropriate for his time and his struggles, and no doubt > he > > was brilliant in many ways, but his thinking does not seem to really > > satisfy > > any real questions. > > > > All he really knows, is the self and the other. Together always, and one > > evidently thinking about the other. That's the kindergarten, bedrock > basis > > of all phenomena, experience or conceptualization of self. I think about > > something, therefore I and something exist. That video snip that Marsha > > shared was really a great tutorial on what I'd say is the heart of the > MoQ > > - > > the place where subject and object meet - where the experience occurs. > The > > idea of this event having a postive spin - that it's a GOOD thing to > > conceptualize the cosmos. That it's a good thing to realize the > > relationships of being, from highest to lowest - that being itself is > > dependent upon this positive spin out of the maelstrom of immediate > > experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [John]: > > > > > > And here he went just as astray as assuming the things and > > >> events of a given reality. How can there be a knower if there > > >> is nothing to know? > > >> > > > > > > > > Ham: > > > > > > > This assumes there is nothing prior to the existential divide. > > > > > > John: Ok, I hadn't thought about it that way at all, but I'd definitely > > say > > there is no reason to postulate any thing prior to the existential > divide. > > Such a way of trying to get outside of time and experience, seems futile > > and > > foolish to me. How can one know anything about that which is outside of > > the > > existential divide? If such insights do exist, they are of a different > > order than the simple philosophical wonderings we stick to in the game > > called "metaphysics". > > > > But I think this is an old issue with us, and perhaps we can dig a bit > into > > it and get somewhere good. > > > > > > > > Again you are invoking the 'ex nihilo' fallacy. > > > > > > > > I don't believe that everything came from nothing. I wonder if this > > "everything" had a beginning. I mean, "beginning" is a term of human > > valuation - based upon our perspective of being born. And much of what > we > > see of life follows this pattern. But "everything" is a much bigger > thing > > than the mere lives that adorn it. It's like the same issue I had with > Mr. > > James and his "multiverse". When you have a collection of them, then we > > simply have a bigger universe that contains various aspects, one in which > > we > > dwell and have our being. On the other hand, since they lie outside the > > realm of possible experience, why even postulate their existence? > Doesn't > > sound pragmatic to me. > > > > Neither does asking what came before the big bang? It's a stupid > > question, > > because we're so entirely logically incapable of thinking outside the > > context of our cosmos. The way it seems to me, just conceptualizing the > > relationships of the cosmos we're IN, is an infinite game that we have no > > hope of finishing. But when we get that done, then we can talk about > that > > which is outside the big enchilada. Or how big it is compared to other > > possible enchiladas. > > > > > > > > > Even you agree that the Value (Quality) upon which Mr. Pirsig has based > > the > > > MoQ doesn't exist independently of realization. > > > > > > > > Very true. Not the absolute subject, nor the absolute object, but > meaning > > and self and realization and everything is found where the two meet and > > mingle. It's the relationship - the marriage, the dance, that is the > > bedrock of existence. However, it's not just a simple relation between > > subject and object, for life is more than a random combination of > elements > > which happened to evolve intelligence by pure chance. Hence the need for > > Quality and understanding a triadic relationship of being. > > > > > > > > > It is the sensible agent who actualizes essential Value as the object > > > (being) of his existential knowing. That's why I don't think > > "co-dependent > > > arising" adequately explains creation. > > > > > > I think I agree. "co-dependent" has connotations of two distinct > > entities, mutually arising, but equal and just a duality. And there's > > something more to the story than subjects being the other side of > objects. > > There's a purpose, a positive spin involved that gives extra emphasis to > > the > > "actualizer of realized Value". That's partly why the idea (which Pirsig > > toyed with) of a trinitarian approach is appealing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, could it not be said that the existence of a supreme > > >> deceitful being is just as much otherness as things in > > >> themselves? I think philosophers get in trouble when their > > >> skepticism at knowing reality "as it really is" leads them > > >> to postulating nothingness as an antidote. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Antinomy, not "antidote", John. Nothingness is the necessary delimiter > > of > > > Beingness. > > > > > > > > John: Well I don't think it's necessary. I'd saying beingness is > > self-evident and "nothingness" is just a ghost - a postulation for those > > trying to think outside the box. This is the same issue, over and over. > > The big bootstrap issues. I'm a simple guy. Being I can point to. > > Nothingness I can't. Who says Beingness needs a delimiter? Why can't it > > just go on forever? If there are boundaries, you can't draw them. When > > one > > attempts to define the boundaries of being they recede like the speed of > > light from inside a speeding rocket. > > > > Ham: > > > > > > > It's the critical factor in differentiating and defining the "thousand > > and > > > one things" in terms of their relations, dynamics, and quantitative > > > properties. Without nothingness the evolution of a pluralistic > universe > > in > > > which we are the conscious participants is a metaphysical > impossibility. > > > > > > > > > > John: Ok, you seem to be using "nothingness" there in the same way I'd > use > > "negation". There's as much difference between nothing and negation as > > there is between a minus and a zero. I understand that I realize red > > because it's "not yellow, not orange, etc". But unless you're using it > > that > > way, I can't even begin to understand how nothingness is necessary to the > > evolution of a pluralistic universe... or for that matter, what the hell > is > > a pluralistic universe anyway? I only know this one universe. I don't > > know > > anything about what came before it, or how it was caused, or when it came > > into being, or any of those things. I've heard stories. Some were more > > entertaining than others. "believing in nothingness is like believing > in > > wood. Ok, great, you believe in wood. Now what are you going to build?" > > I > > hope you got a chance to listen to that guy Ham. He was pretty good. > > > > > > Ham: > > > > > > > I doubt that it is possible to communicate everything you feel or > > > experience to others. But even if it were, it isn't others who > establish > > > the "meaning and definition" of your reality. > > > > > > John: "My"reality. There is something like "my" reality. And this is > > contrasted with the reality that we all share in common. But my reality > > differs from this shared or communal reality. I can dream, imagine, > > construe, guess or know, and such facts and patterns and choices are what > > make me who I am. I am my reality. And how are the boundaries and > > definitions of MY reality formed Ham? By what they are not. They are > not > > the same as Your reality, or they differ in subtle ways by the communal > > reality that others percieve. So I disagree completely. My reality is > > exactly established and defined by others. > > > > Ham > > > > > > > > > You do this yourself. > > > > > > John: > > > > Mostly. I make the choices to think or be different, to go off in my own > > reality. But what happens if others observe my reality, and like it? > > Suppose they choose to share with me, my reality in someway? In that > case, > > my reality has become our reality - which is redundant because "our" > > reality > > is just "reality" > > > > Ham: > > > > > > > Being an object to others in no way enhances the meaning of your life. > > > Conscious awareness is proprietary to each self, not a transferable > > > commodity. You are no more a "mirror to others" than they are to you. > > > > > > > > > John: > > > > "being an object to others" isn't something I think about, or like to > think > > about. Hmmmm... Interesting. I don't think anyone likes being > > "objectified". I think to do so generates a low-quality feeling that > means > > something more significant than we realize. So I definitely agree that > > it's > > not any enhancement. I agree that conscious awareness is proprietary to > > the > > self. Heck, as far as I can see, it's identical with what I'd call my > > "self" so I'll certainly allow its propietary nature. But part of my > > trouble understanding what you mean, is understanding what you are > arguing > > against. I mean, there's no danger of any hive-mind social construct > > gobbling up such a self-contained consciousness. I see no reason to fear > > any chance of loss of individuality in understanding it's context and > where > > it gets it's meaning - in relationships. Variety of individuality > > enhances, > > rather than detracts, from true individuality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have difficulty understanding people who feel they must get the > > attention > > > of others in order to "leave their mark on the world". Somehow this > > > behavior seems to run counter to the morality of rational, > self-directed > > > value. > > > > > > > > > > I, on the other hand. Find it very easy to understand people who crave > > social affirmation. It's an impulse I feel myself, and so easily > > comprehend > > it when expressed by others. _Our_ Reality, if you will. Or Thee Reality > - > > the one we have to deal with. Most of human experience is related some > way > > or another, to this social striving. And if this behavior is by > conscious > > choice, then how does it differ from "rational, self-directed value?" My > > self wants affirmation, how much more self-directed can I be then, than > > when > > I seek it? > > > > > > Sorry I took so long to get back to you, John. The above should address > > the > > > substance of your last two posts. I was also sorry to learn of your > > > personal problems, and hope your mother recovers soon. > > > > > > > > > > Our dialogues are like wine to me, Ham. The waiting just makes it > better. > > But don't worry about me. I have no personal problems. Everything is > > perfect, and life is good. Interesting and "something to write home > > about". > > > > And as long as my mom needs care, I'll probably have to spend my nights > in > > the comforts of civilization and my wife's bed, so... I for one won't be > > saddened by a long convalescence. > > > > > > Philosophically yours, > > > > John > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > > > -- > parser > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
