Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
blog in the near future.
.
Op woensdag 22 oktober 2014 15:46:16 UTC+2 schreef yanniru:
Peter,
Could you elaborate on how Dark Energy fits into your thesis?
Richard
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote
Hi Richard,
I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather from
the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of positive
energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too some kind of
polarity seems to hold. The point is that as space expands,
Hi Brent,
On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic qualities
because they are defined through their differences from each other. Thus a
being is what it is simply by not being something else. So in themselves,
abstracted from their relations to other beings, beings
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your explanation, but I'm afraid it doesn't really help me. The
main reason is no doubt my own stupidity, since most of what you say goes
over my head. I understand some physics, but it must be explained to me in
non-mathematical terms, otherwise I don't get (I have
Wow... That's quite shocking! I see I have to be much more careful in
taking over what the pop science writers say...
Unfortunately, physics is a subject where the text books tend to carry
more weight than the popular presentations. The text books show that the
claims about the zero net
Hi Brent,
Thanks for your comments, which are very useful, even if the more technical
comments are beyond me (I have to study up on that). Thanks for the tip
about category theory, I vaguely heard about it... I know it is a rival to
set theory when it comes to founding math (insofar that is
First my apologies to you and Brent for the mix up. I'm new to this
wonderful forum, and the format still disorients me a bit...
which is why the universe exists in the first place, that is, it is not
nothing (= ontological difference).
You wrote: That looks like a play with word, which
Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786)
where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental
categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of
the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on
Sorry about that last line... I forgot to delete that...
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
I wonder if you know the work of the French philosopher Badiou. He has
built an entire ontology on set theory, taking the empty set (or the void
as dramatically calls it) as his most fundamental concept. He takes over
the Von Neumann derivation of math in terms of set theory and then adopts a
approach...
Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 03:26:09 UTC+1 schreef John Clark:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of
attractive and repulsive forces
A magnetic field neither attracts nor
True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic... Please
don't hold back when I say something stupid...
--
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
Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces
between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna
know is this: can all the foces mediated by the bosons be described as
attractions or repulsions between the fermions? Or is that way too
Well, in defence of poor old Kant, let us remember that together with
Laplace he was the discoverer of the nebular hypothesis about the formation
of solar systems... I gues a similar story holds about galaxies...
So the man was not totally useless.
And of course there is a strong Kantian
Obviously I meant MWI where I wrote WMI...
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group,
Hi Bruno,
I would like to let you know that I read two of your papers, which I found
very interesting (even if the technical bits are a bit beyond me), but that
I can't respond right now, since we are in the middle of moving to a new
house. I will get back in touch with you later to discuss
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kYtkG8INML8/VGb5Cu0WdhI/B-M/v1flmzdgt1E/s1600/miracle.gif
I've read it and considered it and I think it's bollocks... though there
are some interesting ideas in there, e.g. that in information-theoretic
terms nothingness can be described as an
Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a
closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's head
to understand the mathematics :)
I hope you don't mind answering some questions in advance. You wrote:
Exactly. The source of the symmetry
Haha... a glas of wine and a lie down seems like the appropriate response
either way!
But your response is clarifying... It's like the idea of the zero-energy
universe but in informational terms... The universe is 'substantially'
nothing, and we and our surroundings are 'just' its mutually
Here is a new blog piece I wrote:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/11/the-inconsistency-of-nothing-objective_17.html
Here I use some of the tools of analytical philosophy to analyze the
logical impossibility of nothinness... For the philosophically inclined among
you...
Peter
that all
machines' dream exist in arithmetic. It is an open problem if that define
a universe, a multiverse, or only a multi-dream.
You have NUMBER = CONSCIOUSNESS = PHYSICAL APPEARANCES = HUMAN
CONSCIOUSNESS
Best,
Bruno
On 26 Aug 2015, at 10:02, Peter Sas wrote:
I thought Tipler's
Hi guys and girls,
I'm sure this question has already come up many times before, but it's an
important one, so I guess it can't do any harm to go over it again.
If the universe is thoroughly computational, what are the computations
'running' on? What I especially like to know is what options
I thought Tipler's theory is that there will be an actual physical computer
that will be able to do all possible computations as the Universe collapses
- although since he came up with the idea it has been shown that the
Universe won't collapse in the required way.
Yes, it's not Tipler's main
Personally my brain stack overflows at about 3 or 4 levels of being aware
that I am aware that ... I am aware. I think it would require infinite
memory to truly be aware of an infinite number of steps in such a recursive
relation.
Maybe the infinite hierarchy doesn't have to be
e is also a big fan of Josiah Royce.
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfDB35y-5Z0
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTcQp1bTKHA
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Sas <peterj...@gmail.com >
> To: Everything List <everyth...@googleg
Hi Mike,
That film looks like a lot of fun... How can I see it? Can I order a copy
online?
Here by the way is my latest blog post on the platform problem in digital
physics and the relation to consciousness:
Hi everybody,
I wrote a blog piece where I combine absolute idealism ('all of reality is
one self-consciousness') with digital physics and computability theory:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2016/06/9-remarks-on-absolute-idealism-20_32.html
I would love to hear your critical
Mitch, I don't now if my 'theory' (I hesitate to call it that) implies an
afterlife. I certainly think there is an immortal core to each empirical
individual self-consciousness, but this core is trans-individual, the one
Absolute Self-Awareness in which we all share... Wether this immortality
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your answer. It is indeed still not entirely clear to me.
On the one hand you wrote "It does not dovetail on non computable
functions, which have no algorithm". On the other hand you wrote:"It
dovetails because, indeed, some program will not stop". But a program that
Hi guys and girls,
I have a question about the concept of the universal dovetailer. I
understand that the necessity to postulate the UD follows from the Halting
Problem (HP): since there are uncomputable functions from N to N, and since
because of the HP there is no algorithm for deciding
sm
Finally, to Telmo: I cling to the notion of (self-)causation because
Leibniz's questions asks for a reason behind existence, i.e. a cause (which
makes something exist).
Greetings,
Peter
Op dinsdag 21 juni 2016 13:04:30 UTC+2 schreef Peter Sas:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I wrote a
Mathematical Neoplatonism = Mathematical monism + Zermelo-Frankel set
theory? = the Plotinian One? Is the derivation of hierarchy V from ∅ the
formal structure of the hierarchical emanation of reality by the One?
Possible or nonsense?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
I meant:
∅ = the Plotinian One?
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send
Hi everybody,
I have a question for you: What is Löbianity? What is its relation to
self-consciousness?
I know the work of Löb has to do with arithmetical self-reference (as it
figures in Gödel's proof for incompleteness).
Obviously, that self-reference is the link with self-consciousness...
Might be of interest:
https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html
--
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
