Re: Constraints on everything existing
At 08:40 PM 1/17/2003 -0800, Eric Hawthorne wrote: John M wrote: Eric: do I detect in your 'circumstances' some 'anthropocentric/metric/logic' restrictions? is the multiverse exclusively built according to the system we devised on this planet as 'our physical laws'? (your 'factor' #1, although you oincluded in factor #2 the (CLASSICAL existence) modifier.) Brings to mind Mr Square's opponents in Abbott's Flatland, with the 2-D vs 3-D joke. It may seem that way (anthropocentric) but when I say intelligent observer I mean any kind of intelligent observer or couched in some more terminology any emergent system or pattern that functions as an intelligent observer. So no, I'm not talking about a human-centric anthropic principle, I'm talking about an arbitrary intelligent observer, generically defined. As you would expect, I would guess that there are some pretty tight constraints on how an intelligent observer would have to function to be considered such, but human is definitely too narrow a definition of it. I see intelligent observer production as being a threshold level of organization achieved by certain constraint regimes on all sequences of state changes. Of course, as a thought experiment, you could set a lower threshold criterion for fully existing worlds, such as the ability to be organized enough to produce some interesting (non-trivial) stable emergent systems that seem to exhibit some higher-level functions including self-preserving functions. Unless a world (i.e. a sequence of information state changes) has produced intelligent observers though, there will be no one around in it to argue whether it exists or not. Then our universe did not exist before there were intelligent observers in it, which is not true. I think that is better to say that all self-consistent mathematical structures exist. To restrict existence to universes containing SASs (self-aware structures) is not only is very cumbersome but leads to contradictions. On another subject, I read on the list that different universes cannot communicate. I see at least one possibility for communication: One scientist in our universe implements a computer simulation of an universe containing SASs. The scientist could then communicate with them. There is also of course the possibility that we ourselves live in a computer simulation Which brings us around to the conclusion that after all, the question of classical existence or not of some world is only ever a concern of intelligent observers. It is not really a concern for the non-thinking aspects of worlds or potential worlds, precisely because those parts are content to just be, or maybe be, as the case may be. Those parts are just the potential for information. Only when something comes along that cares to conceptualize about the various possibilities borne of different states of information, does there arise a question of existence, and then, it is a question of existence from the perspective of those that can observe and care about such things.
Re: Constraints on everything existing
Jean-Michel Veuillen wrote: Then our universe did not exist before there were intelligent observers in it, which is not true. I think that is better to say that all self-consistent mathematical structures exist. To restrict existence to universes containing SASs (self-aware structures) is not only is very cumbersome but leads to contradictions. The stipulation that a universe involves principly, if not fully, population by SAS's .. could be seen as a 'restriction'. However, that only happens when self-awareness .. as a relationship and property .. is narrowly defined or acsribed to limited types of organization(s) within a 'universe'. If instead, it is a property that is relevant to the generic class relationship(s), then self-awareness becomes synonymous with self-relationship(s). And when -that- is the dominating and established characteristic of 'being', then it is natural and unavoidable .. and complete .. that some degree of associative awareness is present and operating in all systems in all universes. The forms and extents may vary. The behaviors may be more cognizable 'in' some instantiations and relevant 'to' some instantions, but the core phenomenon is there none the less, in -all- instantiations. Co-relevance. Where it is only secondary and higher relations, through which may emerge, and via which may be instituted .. conditional 'disconnects' .. such that information is locally blocked and some parts of the totality de facto exist 'numb' to other extant 'information'; at least if that barrier remains intact and not bridged (as is its potential). I.e., disparate information might be accessible if the correct transduction (transform) arrangements are made, and translations made real. Jamie Rose Ceptual Institute
I the mirror
Dear Everythingers, This is a query placed as a result of failing to succeed to find answers when googling my way around the place for a very long time (2 years). I am about to conclude that a) no such discourse exists or b) that it is disguised in a form of physics/math that my searching has not uncovered. I know it is off-topic but I thought I'd run it by you folk as the most eclectic agglomerators of knowledge in the multiverse. Off-list replies welcome - keep the noise down and all that. Q. What branch of science has ascertained the role and status of the image in a first person perspective of a mirror? .ie. 'be' the mirror. The answer 'there ain't one as far as I know' is as acceptable as anything. I just need to know what's out there. If there's nothing there then I take it I'm in that breezy lonely spot past the front lines of epistemology and trundle on assuming (a) above. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Colin Hales
RE: I the mirror
Hi, Onar Aam wrote some nice essays on mirrors and awareness, a few years back. He had a quite elaborate theory. Unfortunately, his website seems not to be up anymore. However, if you e-mail him, he will probably send them to you. A year ago his e-mail was [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I'm not 100% sure it's current. -- Ben -Original Message- From: Colin Hales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 7:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I the mirror Dear Everythingers, This is a query placed as a result of failing to succeed to find answers when googling my way around the place for a very long time (2 years). I am about to conclude that a) no such discourse exists or b) that it is disguised in a form of physics/math that my searching has not uncovered. I know it is off-topic but I thought I'd run it by you folk as the most eclectic agglomerators of knowledge in the multiverse. Off-list replies welcome - keep the noise down and all that. Q. What branch of science has ascertained the role and status of the image in a first person perspective of a mirror? .ie. 'be' the mirror. The answer 'there ain't one as far as I know' is as acceptable as anything. I just need to know what's out there. If there's nothing there then I take it I'm in that breezy lonely spot past the front lines of epistemology and trundle on assuming (a) above. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Colin Hales
Re: I the mirror
The ancient Egyptians were the first to identify 'mirror' with first-person experience, some 5000 years ago. The word ankh means both 'life' and 'mirror' since full living-reality was what visually appears represented on the surface of 'mirrors'. Whether there was 'self-experience' there or not was another issue; it was sufficient to observe tht identical 'observable phenomena' were there in both 'places'. :-) Jamie Rose Ceptual Institute Colin Hales wrote: Dear Everythingers, This is a query placed as a result of failing to succeed to find answers when googling my way around the place for a very long time (2 years). I am about to conclude that a) no such discourse exists or b) that it is disguised in a form of physics/math that my searching has not uncovered. I know it is off-topic but I thought I'd run it by you folk as the most eclectic agglomerators of knowledge in the multiverse. Off-list replies welcome - keep the noise down and all that. Q. What branch of science has ascertained the role and status of the image in a first person perspective of a mirror? .ie. 'be' the mirror. The answer 'there ain't one as far as I know' is as acceptable as anything. I just need to know what's out there. If there's nothing there then I take it I'm in that breezy lonely spot past the front lines of epistemology and trundle on assuming (a) above. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Colin Hales
