See please interspaced remarks " (JM)" as well.
General addition I would start with:
"In our present views, based on the limited capabilities of the mind-brain
activity we can only muster for the time being..."
(Our mental event-horizon reaches only so far)
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <lists.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: UDA revisited
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 02:36:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> But if a physical universe is needed to run the UD, without a physical
>> universe
>> there is no UD. It's a circular argument unless you have some other
>> argument
>> showing a computation can run without physical hardware.
>>
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> The argument is that its "turtles all the way down", or in other words
> that there is no first cause.
(JM):
At least not within our present mental horizon. "All possible things" are
not restricted to our present knowledge-limits. An expression like "there is
none" seems like a current 'theory-based' exaggeration.
>
> It seems that there are three possibilities:
>
> 1. Causal chains are infinite and unbounded
> 2. Causal chains are infinite but bounded (the causal chain is
> circular).
> 3. Casual chains are finite and bounded (first cause is needed)
>
> Only in case 3 is a physical universe needed to run the UD. My
> personal taste is for case 2, but I doubt there is any way of
> empirically settling the matter, and many people find all 3 >options
> distasteful.
(JM):
In my 'wholeness-view' (not yet realizable) #1 is the version.
"Cause" in this case is the impact-result of the ever changing totality,
while any other (picked?) cause(s) are within a model-view.
#2 seems to me like 'eat your cake and have it' .
"Empirically based"? do we include mental experiencing to exceed the
'physical world based (conventional) observation figment?
Even 'logically acceptable' seems restricted to our human ways.
I resort to the (humble) position that we are not (yet?) set to say a
'final' word upon more remote features than how far our present mental event
horizon reaches. (Turtle is OK).
In spite of a '-*nescio* non est scientia-' (my version) maxim.
>
> Cheers
(JM)
Cheers - John
>
> PS - I'll need to think a bit about Colin's post... :)
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Nov 19 2006 - 11:12:48 PST