Re: UDA revisited

From: John M <>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:12:15 -0500

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)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <>
To: <>
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.

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.

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

Cheers - John
> PS - I'll need to think a bit about Colin's post... :)
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> Australia

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Nov 19 2006 - 11:12:48 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST