Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-08 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 07 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/7/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



Math is ambiguous on that.


A priori, yes. But once we assume computationalism in cognitive  
science, then we can accept that when numbers, relatively to other  
numbers, behave in some ways (self-reference, etc.) they get mind,  
or at least some mind can be associate to them (and then on the  
infinity of them).


But this is very vague.  Why should there be more than one mind.  
What picks out individual minds? And why are they associated with  
brains?


By the computationalist hypothesis. Then, if you accept Theaetetus'  
method to recover the classical notion of knowledge, and its precise  
translation in arithmetic, you get all the precision needed.






 And why do they agree on a common physical world?


By the unicity of the measure on the first person indeterminacy,  
guarantied if comp is true (by UDA). Of course if comp is false, we  
must solve and address the problem differently, but to say comp false  
today is just premature, as we have not only no evidence against comp,  
but we don't even have any alternative theories. Even Craig's attempt  
to give one illustrates how much his intuition of the mind is close to  
what the machines already tell us.





Arithmetic only shows that some numbers can refer to other numbers,  
where 'refer' is in terms arithmetic operations.  That is very far  
from showing they are 'minds'.




Now, you really talk like if you never heard about the machine's  
interview (AUDA). All that is explained in the second part of  
sane2004, and I have made more than one attempt to explain it on this  
list. It is not easy as it supposes some knowledge in mathematical  
logic. "Numbers have mind" is of course a shortcut for "numbers'  
relations emulate (in the math sense) computations supporting a person  
having a mind, as comp asks us to accept that the brain is Turing  
emulable, and all brain emulation exists in arithmetic.


Not only machines or numbers have mind with comp, but the whole theory  
of souls and god by Plato, that is a whole theology, containing a  
complete theory of matter is entirely provided in terms so precise  
that it gives the most clearly refutable theory of souls and matter  
actually existing.


Of course some literary philosophers, usually of the quite dogmatic  
and atheist sort, are not happy. But this is a common trends in the  
development of science. The wishful opportunists are disturbed when  
some people illustrate the possibility of rigor in their field.


Bruno






Brent



--
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-07 Thread Craig Weinberg 


On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:50:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 06 Feb 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:50:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
>>>
 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.
>>>
>>
>> Why doesn't the metamind need a metamind?
>>
>>
>> In fact arithmetic explains the presence of mind, in both the 3p and 1p 
>> view. Even without comp actually, by using the definition of mind by 
>> self-reference, and true self-reference (with truth guven by Tarski theory 
>> applied to arithmetic).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> What explains the presence of arithmetic?
>
>
> It is mysterious. But it is the least mysterious thing that we have to 
> assume to talk on anything else.
>

Sense is less mysterious because we experience it first hand. It is most 
mysterious because it cannot be explained. It cannot be explained because 
there is nothing more primitive than sense with which to explain it. To 
begin to talk arithmetically, you have to first have a way to talk. That is 
sensory-motor participation. Input and output. Without I/O, there is no 
reason for numbers, as the purpose of numbers is to represent figurative 
relations discretely - not to manifest material objects or subjective 
experiences (even if they can be used to figuratively represent one to the 
other).
 

>
>
>
>
>
> Or if we assume arithmetic, why should there be the presence of anything 
> else?
>
>
> That's the point. There isn't anything else. 
>

But you are always saying 'no, that's not arithmetic, that's the dreams of 
numbers, or the contents of the dreams of numbers.' How can you have it 
both ways? 

>
> Arithmetic is quite enough to explain how immaterial beings can get lost 
> in terrestrial realities, and why those realities obeys laws, and which 
> laws.
>

Only if you assume terrestrial qualities and realism and beings in advance. 
If there isn't anything but arithmetic, then why should such qualities and 
experiences exist?

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>  

 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 everything-li...@**googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> 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 yo

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-07 Thread meekerdb 

On 2/7/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Math is ambiguous on that.


A priori, yes. But once we assume computationalism in cognitive science, then we can 
accept that when numbers, relatively to other numbers, behave in some ways 
(self-reference, etc.) they get mind, or at least some mind can be associate to them 
(and then on the infinity of them).


But this is very vague.  Why should there be more than one mind. What picks out individual 
minds?  And why are they associated with brains?  And why do they agree on a common 
physical world?  Arithmetic only shows that some numbers can refer to other numbers, where 
'refer' is in terms arithmetic operations.  That is very far from showing they are 'minds'.


Brent


--
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 06 Feb 2013, at 20:36, Alberto G. Corona wrote:





2013/2/6 Bruno Marchal 

On 06 Feb 2013, at 10:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote:





2013/2/6 Stephen P. King 
On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
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".



Math is ambiguous on that.


A priori, yes. But once we assume computationalism in cognitive  
science, then we can accept that when numbers, relatively to other  
numbers, behave in some ways (self-reference, etc.) they get mind, or  
at least some mind can be associate to them (and then on the infinity  
of them).



We can postulate a 3p mathematical existence apart from any mind  
and  any reality.


That is clear for arithmetic, but already not so clear for more than  
arithmetic. With the exception of the very rare ultrafinitsis,  
mathematicians agree on arithmetic, and then disagree on anything  
else, even if most mathematician will agree on large part of analysis,  
but apparently, when they do, soon or later some logicians shows that  
they were agreeing on a part which can be re-explained in arithmetical  
terms.





We can imagine that, but this is probably because we assume an  
implicit 1p mind or meta-mind that is contemplating the mathematical  
thing. That is my guess and this is the most coherent notion of  
existence, related to a mind,, even for mathematical existence   
(apart form a null hypothesis in which everything exist). That is  
indeed the  neoplatonic view. Its´nt it?


It becomes close to neoplatonism, if you made the everything into the  
meta-mind, perhaps. The "everything exist" is not a null hypothesis,  
because the everything, once made precise, needs to define what we  
mean by thing (set? categories? numbers? computations?).
Almost all attempts to define "everything" in math has led to  
contradictory theories. To avoid the contradiction, some restriction  
principles must be introduced, and then we can show that some  
reasonable mathematical objects get lost. In fact the only exception  
is "all computations", which, thanks to the non trivial Church thesis,  
and the "closure of the computations for Cantor diagonalization",  
leads to a quite conceptually solid notion of everything. This is the  
strongest point in favor of comp: it has a non trivial and solid  
notion of "everything" on its ontological side. Then it can explain  
why we live the appearance "from inside" of "more than arithmetic".


Bruno










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  
Gro

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-07 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 06 Feb 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:50:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona  
wrote:




2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
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.


Why doesn't the metamind need a metamind?


In fact arithmetic explains the presence of mind, in both the 3p and  
1p view. Even without comp actually, by using the definition of mind  
by self-reference, and true self-reference (with truth guven by  
Tarski theory applied to arithmetic).


Bruno


What explains the presence of arithmetic?


It is mysterious. But it is the least mysterious thing that we have to  
assume to talk on anything else.






Or if we assume arithmetic, why should there be the presence of  
anything else?


That's the point. There isn't anything else.

Arithmetic is quite enough to explain how immaterial beings can get  
lost in terrestrial realities, and why those realities obeys laws, and  
which laws.


Bruno





Craig









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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona 
2013/2/6 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 06 Feb 2013, at 10:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/2/6 Stephen P. King 
>
>>  On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
>>
>>> 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".
>
>
> Math is ambiguous on that.  We can postulate a 3p mathematical existence
apart from any mind and  any reality.
We can imagine that, but this is probably because we assume an implicit 1p
mind or meta-mind that is contemplating the mathematical thing. That is my
guess and this is the most coherent notion of existence, related to a
mind,, even for mathematical existence  (apart form a null hypothesis in
which everything exist). That is indeed the  neoplatonic view. Its´nt it?

>
>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 unsubscr

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Craig Weinberg 


On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:50:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Why doesn't the metamind need a metamind?
>
>
> In fact arithmetic explains the presence of mind, in both the 3p and 1p 
> view. Even without comp actually, by using the definition of mind by 
> self-reference, and true self-reference (with truth guven by Tarski theory 
> applied to arithmetic).
>
> Bruno
>
>
What explains the presence of arithmetic? Or if we assume arithmetic, why 
should there be the presence of anything else?

Craig
 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>  
>>>
>>> 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 everything-li...@**googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 06 Feb 2013, at 10:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote:





2013/2/6 Stephen P. King 
On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:



2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
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.


Why doesn't the metamind need a metamind?


In fact arithmetic explains the presence of mind, in both the 3p and  
1p view. Even without comp actually, by using the definition of mind  
by self-reference, and true self-reference (with truth guven by Tarski  
theory applied to arithmetic).


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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 2/6/2013 4:22 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/2/6 Stephen P. King >


On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/2/5 Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

Hi,

ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
sense is to make it meaningless.


That愀 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愒 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.


Dear Alberto,

I would not word it in such a harsh term (unless one is critiquing 
an eliminatist like Dennett). Physics requires that we trace out the 
'individuality' (stochasticity?) of the individual elements of an 
ensemble to get a well behaved sample.





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. 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


I agree, we might avoid this regress by considering an interactive 
model or one that allows for regress to be contained, such as what is 
the case in non-well founded set based models. It is when one tries to 
create a model that forces global consistency for a single point of view 
that is problematic; so why not stop trying?




At the end we can not think outside 1p. Scientific inquiry is 
 comunicable 1p. Because the world of the mind -where we live- is and 
ever will be teleological.


Yes, the world of *a* mind (not stated first person singular!) is 
teleological, as each mind must have a prior sense of being in the world 
to know of itself. This is why Pratt changes "Cogito, ergo sum" into 
"Cogito, ergo eram" - I think, therefore I was. Logic's arrow points 
against the flow of time.





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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 2/6/2013 3:43 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
It may be that like all CREATIVE endeavours (including evolution), the 
purpose of the universe is what the universe is endeavouring to 
engender. In other words, the universe has no purpose until that 
purpose comes into being. When the universe (or multiverse or 
whatever) manages to create its purpose, that purpose may be instantly 
apparent to all sentient beings inside it. Clearly it hasn't happened 
yet, because if it had, this list would no longer be necessary. 
Therefore, the purpose of purpose can only be read after the event, 
never before it. Maybe take that thought somewhere or other.


Cheers,

Kim Jones


Hi Kim,

I agree 100%. The implied relation to time (via an action of 
evolution) that you mention is exactly what I have found to solve the 
problem that Leibniz' Pre-established harmony has. It expands on the 
idea that 'time exists because everything cannot happen simultaneously'.





On 06/02/2013, at 11:48 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote:



On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/2/5 Stephen P. King >


Hi,

ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
sense is to make it meaningless.


That愀 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愒 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?




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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona 
2013/2/6 Stephen P. King 

>  On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
>
>> 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. 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

At the end we can not think outside 1p. Scientific inquiry is  comunicable
1p. Because the world of the mind -where we live- is and ever will be
teleological.

>
>>
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-06 Thread Kim Jones 
It may be that like all CREATIVE endeavours (including evolution), the purpose 
of the universe is what the universe is endeavouring to engender. In other 
words, the universe has no purpose until that purpose comes into being. When 
the universe (or multiverse or whatever) manages to create its purpose, that 
purpose may be instantly apparent to all sentient beings inside it. Clearly it 
hasn't happened yet, because if it had, this list would no longer be necessary. 
Therefore, the purpose of purpose can only be read after the event, never 
before it. Maybe take that thought somewhere or other.

Cheers,

Kim Jones


On 06/02/2013, at 11:48 AM, Stephen P. King  wrote:

> On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 
>> 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?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  

-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/2/5 Stephen P. King >


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?




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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 2/5/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi,

 ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p
sense is
to make it meaningless.


Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of probabilistic 
replication implies any 1p significance.


Things replicate. Some replications persist for longer than others. So 
what? What is the purpose of persistence? How did the principles of 
probability and and repetition evolve or appear?


Craig


Hi Craig,

I don't think that there is a 'purpose' per se to persistence. It 
either occurs or does not. But think of what persistence implies. When 
we say that X persists, we are effectively saying that multiple 1p 
versions of it can exist that are, somehow, different from each other 
and yet 'point to' one and the same X. Maybe they don't point to the 
'same' X but they point to different versions of X that are, within some 
error limit, indistinguishable.
Purpose is a strange word that needs to be carefully defined! 
Intentionality 


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Craig Weinberg 


On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King >
>
>> 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.
>

Why doesn't the metamind need a metamind?
 

>  
>>
>> 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 everything-li...@**googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> everyth...@googlegroups.**com
>> .
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Alberto G. Corona 
2013/2/5 Stephen P. King 

> 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.

>
>
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Craig Weinberg 


On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi, 
>
>  ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is 
> to make it meaningless. 
>
>
Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of probabilistic 
replication implies any 1p significance.  

Things replicate. Some replications persist for longer than others. So 
what? What is the purpose of persistence? How did the principles of 
probability and and repetition evolve or appear?

Craig



>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Stephen P. King 


Anything that has a purpose is teleological. 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-05, 07:53:22
Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success


Hi,

 ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is 
to make it meaningless.



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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Kim Jones 

Life seems to be the only thing in the universe that has purpose--
which is, or course, to create more life.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Kim Jones 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-02-05, 02:59:01
Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success


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




On 05/02/2013, at 6:47 PM, Russell Standish  wrote:

> By contrast, Smolin's idea is taken very seriously by this list. For
> example, it is mentioned not once, but twice in my book (page 49 and
> 102).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:16:59PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
>> 
>> 
>> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
>> 
>> 
>> Kim Jones
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 

-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Kim Jones 

I thought that black holes destroy rather than create.

That only life can create.




- Receiving the following content - 
From: Kim Jones 
Receiver: Everything List 
Time: 2013-02-05, 02:16:59
Subject: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success


http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer




OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.




Kim Jones

-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Richard Ruquist 
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
>
>
> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
>
>
> It is full of sense, but a bit trivial, and then he uses implicitly comp,
> but fail to generalize its approach, and to see it makes non trivial sense
> from that point. I am afraid it makes also his view more complex by trying
> to avoid the MWI, which of course makes it still more far from comp. Like
> many physicists, he avoids the mind body problem. It is still a form of
> Aristotelianism, which, I argue, is not compatible with the comp hyp in the
> cognitive science. But somehow, it is less wrong than many others, if we
> abstract from what has to be revised in the light of comp.
>
> Bruno
>

Here is a generalization of Smolin's approach:
http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/285



>
>
>
>
>
> Kim Jones
>
> --
> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote:


http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer


OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.


It is full of sense, but a bit trivial, and then he uses implicitly  
comp, but fail to generalize its approach, and to see it makes non  
trivial sense from that point. I am afraid it makes also his view more  
complex by trying to avoid the MWI, which of course makes it still  
more far from comp. Like many physicists, he avoids the mind body  
problem. It is still a form of Aristotelianism, which, I argue, is not  
compatible with the comp hyp in the cognitive science. But somehow, it  
is less wrong than many others, if we abstract from what has to be  
revised in the light of comp.


Bruno








Kim Jones

--
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Stephen P. King 

Hi,

ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is 
to make it meaningless.




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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Alberto G. Corona 
I doubt that meaning, existence, creation, purpose  makes sense when
applied to the mathematical nature of the external reality. I think that
these concepts only makes sense when though by a mind. So either we reject
these concepts when thinking about the universe (and this makes reasoning
almost impossible when taken seriously) or else, we implicirtly are
assuming that we are figuring out what a metamind in a metatime was
thinking when He fired up equations into existence. that is, we are trying
to know the mind of God in which we implicitly believe.

Purpose, for example, implies a goal and a goal implies some actions in
order to reach the goal either at the beginning (at the creation of the
drama) or at the course of the action.In the first case, it is assumed
that the purpose-creator had freedom to bring existence or not of different
things depending on the purpose. In the second case, it supposes miracles.
In the case of Smolin, like many others, they try to be as close as
possible to the null hypothesis, where this Mind is progressively more and
more lazy, so he creates more and more weird things in a single act in
order not  to think and not to waste time for sleep: And the God of Smolin
said: "Let's be String theory with a lot of free parameters, so may be
black holes populate each universe or not. And he saw it good, so He return
to sleep".


Why not "lets everithing into existence"?. That is the null hypothesis. But
existence again, is meaningless without an observer, a metamind, because is
the mind the one that observe existence. We have an implicit Observer. The
same could be said about the concept of "beginning" and, in fact, almost
any concept of the language. So we need a metamind, in a metatime. an
extremely lazy metamind. But his "creation" is undistinguisable from a more
focused metamind which may bring into existence just a strech set of
alternatives in order to produce the same number of observer minds. In any
case we need -or our reasoning implicitly assumes- a mind to fire-up.


What we know is that the external mathematical reality supports for the
existence and communicability of minds. And these minds and groups of minds
create their own realities, that  do have purposes and create and infer
meaning. We can only reason with the concepts of minds about other minds.


2013/2/5 Kim Jones 

> 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
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2013, at 6:47 PM, Russell Standish  wrote:
>
> > By contrast, Smolin's idea is taken very seriously by this list. For
> > example, it is mentioned not once, but twice in my book (page 49 and
> > 102).
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:16:59PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
> >>
> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
> >>
> >>
> >> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
> >>
> >>
> >> Kim Jones
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> >> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> 
> > Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Principal, High Performance Coders
> > Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> > University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
> 
> >
> > --
> > 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-05 Thread Russell Standish 
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
> 
> 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-04 Thread Kim Jones 
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




On 05/02/2013, at 6:47 PM, Russell Standish  wrote:

> By contrast, Smolin's idea is taken very seriously by this list. For
> example, it is mentioned not once, but twice in my book (page 49 and
> 102).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:16:59PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
>> 
>> 
>> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
>> 
>> 
>> Kim Jones
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 

-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013-02-04 Thread Russell Standish 
By contrast, Smolin's idea is taken very seriously by this list. For
example, it is mentioned not once, but twice in my book (page 49 and
102).

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:16:59PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
> http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
> 
> 
> OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense.
> 
> 
> Kim Jones
> 
> -- 
> 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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.