- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: David Nyman <david.nyman.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:50:39 +0100

On 01/07/07, George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

GL: I do not accept as primitive an independent

mathematicalism/arithmetical realism. I think that math and logic are

co-emergent with the consciousness of the observer. In addition physics is

also co-emergent with the observer. So in a sense the "I" or first person is

primitive-emergent. "I", math and physics are all anthropically linked.

DN: Hi George. I agree with the substance of this, and similar intuitions

lie behind my recent posts. Perhaps to avoid seemingly inevitable

terminological confusions over the "I" and the first person, I might put it

that a 0-personal self is primitive-emergent, and 1-persons or observers

emerge from self-relative localisations of this.

GL: The simplest theory of everyting is that everything exists. But this is

hardly satisfying. A useful theory of everything should bring in the

observer as a boundary condition.

DN: Yes, perhaps one could say that the 'self' is the 'everything' that

exists, but that the self is not finite. Finitude manifests as the

spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the self, or self-relativisation, which is

then equivalent to self-actualisation in terms of the co-emergence of

observers and physics. Math and logic in turn would emerge as aspects of

the observer description of co-emergence, not the physical description.

GL: This would correspond to the "I" being equally "at home" in multiple

different worlds or equivalently that multiple worlds would be in a

superposition with respect to the "I."

DN: Yes, this is a good way to phrase it. Relative co-emergence of

1-persons and physical structures would then equate to observer-dependent

decoherence from the superposition of multiple worlds with respect to the

self. Any arbitrarily finite degree of actualisation from the 'plenitude' -

or which model is 'true' - may indeed be indeterminate. To paraphrase

somebody or other, perhaps even a TOE need be infinite enough to save the

appearances, but not more so. So as an aspect of such a theory, the

plenitude allows us to extract any arbitrary limit of possible observed

relationships from 'infinity' by postulating, as you say, the observer (or

any possible observer) as the boundary condition.

David

Hi Jason

*>
*

*> I have not contributed to the list for a while but your question interests
*

*> me.
*

*> I do not accept as primitive an independent mathematicalism/arithmetical
*

*> realism. I think that math and logic are co-emergent with the consciousness
*

*> of the observer. In addition physics is also co-emergent with the observer.
*

*> So in a sense the "I" or first person is primitive-emergent. "I", math and
*

*> physics are all anthropically linked.
*

*>
*

*> The information of the plenitude being zero is the simplest case that
*

*> requires the least explanation. Any other information content would have to
*

*> be justified, and that would force us an endless causal chain. Now let me
*

*> qualify that the "*perceived"* information of the plenitude is definitely
*

*> not zero because it is contingent on the observer. Here the causal chain can
*

*> begin at the observer.
*

*>
*

*> The simplest theory of everyting is that everything exists. But this is
*

*> hardly satisfying. A useful theory of everything should bring in the
*

*> observer as a boundary condition. The theory, more precisely, which physical
*

*> model is "true," may be indeterminate. This indeterminacy would be analogous
*

*> to quantum indeterminacy applied to the cosmic scale. This would correspond
*

*> to the "I" being equally "at home" in multiple different worlds or
*

*> equivalently that multiple worlds would be in a superposition with respect
*

*> to the "I."
*

*>
*

*> George
*

*>
*

*> Jason wrote:
*

*>
*

*> I have seen two main justifications on this list for the everything
*

*> ensemble, the first comes from information theory which says the
*

*> information content of everything is zero (or close to zero). The
*

*> other is mathematicalism/arithmatical realism which suggests
*

*> mathematical truth exists independandly of everything else and is the
*

*> basis for everything.
*

*>
*

*> My question to the everything list is: which explaination do you
*

*> prefer and why? Are these two accounts compatible, incompatible, or
*

*> complimentary? Additionally, if you subscribe to or know of other
*

*> justifications I would be interesting in hearing it.
*

*>
*

*> Thanks,
*

*>
*

*> Jason
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> >
*

*>
*

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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 Jul 01 2007 - 06:51:02 PDT

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:50:39 +0100

On 01/07/07, George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

GL: I do not accept as primitive an independent

mathematicalism/arithmetical realism. I think that math and logic are

co-emergent with the consciousness of the observer. In addition physics is

also co-emergent with the observer. So in a sense the "I" or first person is

primitive-emergent. "I", math and physics are all anthropically linked.

DN: Hi George. I agree with the substance of this, and similar intuitions

lie behind my recent posts. Perhaps to avoid seemingly inevitable

terminological confusions over the "I" and the first person, I might put it

that a 0-personal self is primitive-emergent, and 1-persons or observers

emerge from self-relative localisations of this.

GL: The simplest theory of everyting is that everything exists. But this is

hardly satisfying. A useful theory of everything should bring in the

observer as a boundary condition.

DN: Yes, perhaps one could say that the 'self' is the 'everything' that

exists, but that the self is not finite. Finitude manifests as the

spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the self, or self-relativisation, which is

then equivalent to self-actualisation in terms of the co-emergence of

observers and physics. Math and logic in turn would emerge as aspects of

the observer description of co-emergence, not the physical description.

GL: This would correspond to the "I" being equally "at home" in multiple

different worlds or equivalently that multiple worlds would be in a

superposition with respect to the "I."

DN: Yes, this is a good way to phrase it. Relative co-emergence of

1-persons and physical structures would then equate to observer-dependent

decoherence from the superposition of multiple worlds with respect to the

self. Any arbitrarily finite degree of actualisation from the 'plenitude' -

or which model is 'true' - may indeed be indeterminate. To paraphrase

somebody or other, perhaps even a TOE need be infinite enough to save the

appearances, but not more so. So as an aspect of such a theory, the

plenitude allows us to extract any arbitrary limit of possible observed

relationships from 'infinity' by postulating, as you say, the observer (or

any possible observer) as the boundary condition.

David

Hi Jason

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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 Jul 01 2007 - 06:51:02 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST
*