Colin and all:
it was a shock to receive your post (below).
First I have to copy it out and restore the text to some readability from all
those haphazardous ">" lines.
Then I have to restore my thinking into those lines of the topic - right
recently 'destroyed' by a list inuindating me with 100+ posts daily mostly with
political hogwash, but many of them with interesting multitopical content.
I hope to return to sanity.
Then I will try to respond - if I feel I can - which will require an other
aberration from the ubiquitous 'sanity' into the ideas of this list. This is
something like being 'normal' as we discussed it with George Levy a year or so
ago. Sane (normal) is average and usual. If the majority is insane, that is the
normal sanity (oops I fell back into politics).
So let me renormalize (not in theor. physical ways) and please,
accept my reply kindly - after some time.
Happy birthday
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Colin Geoffrey Hales
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
sorry about all the posts.
something weird going on.
>
> see below..
>
>>
>> See below, please
>> John
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Colin Geoffrey Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
>> Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
>>
>>
Addition to my "lost and found" 1st post in this topic to
Marc:
I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the
> "
IS
"?
*
I agree that 'existence' is more than a definitional question. Any
> suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
(Not Descartes' s "I think therefore I think I am" and so on) John
>>> There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I
> can
>>> think of:
>>> Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy),
> if
>>> you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are
> 'being',
>>> you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It
> does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is
> innate to the situation.
>>> SoI am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so
> on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I get
>>> a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The
> rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom.
>>> This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit
> to
>>> the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand
> point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the
> 'reality'
>>> of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described.
> make sense?
>>> Colin
>> JM:
>> maybe, not to my understanding;
>> I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS", in which of course an
> 'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally.
>> May I paraphrase your explanation:
>> "I am" - 'made of a chunk of something called universe, - whatever I
> call
>> so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something
> different.
>> Not too explanatory.
>> Of course it disregards my question and starts with an implied "if I
> exist..." what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'. I was
> driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first
>> a
>> snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process.
>> So: what is "existence'?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
> To exist is to be a chunk of our universe.
>
> Why is there a universe?
>
> I can manufacture a universe out of randomness of any sort. The randomness
> is a sea of monkeys typing...one day, accidentally, they write a
> masterpiece.
>
> Why is there randomness?
>
> It takes an infinite amount of energy to maintain a perfect Nothing. The
> logical impossibility of a perfect Nothing means not-Nothing must be true.
> not-Nothing is Something. So universes existence because of a failure not
> to exist, simply because it's impossibly hard.
>
> This may not feel very satisfactory, but, it is quite logically sound.
>
> It doesn't actually matter what the true nature of the randomness is...the
> same sorts of structures can be made with it. Us. At the deep structural
> levels of the randomness the details don't matter.
>
> So there you go life the universe and eveything. It's all completely
> meaningless noise and it'll all go back to other random versions of
> 'Not-Nothing' (not so eloquent monkey scribble) in due course, and all our
> efforts will amount to nothing. Literally. So enjoy your qualia while you
> have them!
>
>
> Is the universe a co
