Re: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

From: Brian Tenneson <>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:00:26 -0700


On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:51 PM, John Mikes <> wrote:

> Brian,
> you can count on me to support you for the verbosity medal. In your
> longlong blurb 4 lines are randomly printed, but from the 5th to the 2nd
> from bottom there is an empty word-space at ~60% of the lines, neetly
> arranged as an internal (in-text) margin. I admired it.

Yes, I admired the pattern in the visual layout of the non-random as well.
Thanks. It reminds me of some sort of infinite logic. Also, I'm glad I can
at least cheat to be more verbose than some others here as I often desire to
maintain quantity as well as quality, whatever quality is. People can spend
their whole lives studying quality without knowing how to output quality
while others do nothing more than put out a high volume of material.
Neither of those two cases seem to apply to the everything list which is why
I enjoy it so. (Presently, I'm -only- thinking of the book Zen and The Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance which is a chautauqua about someone whose sole
purpose in life seemed to center around a quest to find out what quality

Interesting that we seem to agree on what random is. -Perhaps- random
strings of numbers can -only- be produced by that which is deem-able as
conscious and/or self-aware, which ties it into Tegmark's SAS theories. So
in that event, i.e., if randomness is a trait possessed -only- by that which
is conscious, then the universe would appear to be conscious in that QM
events are also deem-able as random. So then the statement could be this:

<<If measurements have no detectable pattern [**] then that which led to
those measurements is (at least a module in the mind of) a conscious being.
This conscious being may or may not be self aware, i.e., possess the minimum
requirements of a SAS (self-aware structure).>>

[**] This means, just for the sake of argument and/or communication, that a
standardized method of compressing the numeric values into the smallest form
which is applied, for the purpose of comparison, universally to all sets of
data and that, according to this standard compression algorithm, such as
that which is used to compress a data archive, the compression ratio is the
same, within tolerance, as that which is known to be random such as that of
QM events.

Now if I got through that -without- comma splicing, I would be a bit annoyed
with myself as I strive to be perfectly -imperfect-, whatever perfection and
non-perfection mean.

To recapitulate, the statement of the idea is this:
Randomness implies consciousness.
The converse appears to be false.

SAS implies consciousness.
The converse appears to be false. <consider a one-second-old frog, for

So if x is a 'thing', let the predicates R( ), C( ), and S( ) denote the
meaning behind these statements:
R(x) means x is random. To elaborate, it should be more like R([x]) where
[x] is some numeric code associated to x like the Godel number of the wff
x. (I know I spelled that name wrong, btw)

Furthermore, C(x) means x is conscious and S(x) means x is self-aware
(possibly meaning it is self-referential like Wolpert's self-aware devices).

Then the trees of implications seems to be this and not reversible
[idea 1]
R([x]) ==> C(x)

[idea 2]
S(x) ==> C(x).

To re-recap: if x is any utterance, such as a wff,
R([x]) ==> C(x) <== S(x),
and convincing examples exist of why those implications are not
biconditional, i.e., equivalences.


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 Mon May 12 2008 - 20:00:55 PDT

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