Scott ("S. D. Yelich" <scott.domain.name.hidden>) wrote
February 10, 2001:
> Actually, my statement seems to indicate that I believe that time does
> exist. It wasn't meant to be objectionable, but rather a reference back
> to trying to get a solid answer from J.H. -- to which he always responds
> that he doesn't have the time (to explain to me why time doesn't exist).
Beyond your pun, to take your remark seriously, in my opinion (I wouldn't
call it a theory) the plenitude is a timeless infinite invariance of
everything.
Including the asymmetrical repetitive variance fulgurations
(instantatneously
dissipating into the invariance.) Such occasions are the universes in their
timeless redissipation as viewed from the plenitude. However, such variance
- call it a complexity, 'observable' asymmetrical appearance - looked from
the
inside of it, develops a system, in our case a space-time-causality unverse
with
a zero-sum history of differences.
(So if you are a dweller *within*, time is a "reality" for you. Even if J.H.
does
not have it <G>. He does not have that existing *reality*, because viewed
from
the plenitude all actions would be timeless, so his excuse would be
baseless.)
". .. But, to me, one can't discuss levels of sameness to the same
> extent that one can with difference..."
I believe one can: both are comparative concepts and all depends on the
features to be compared. We (naturally) use a restricted choice of such
features, - nobody is omniscient - so both sameness and difference are
levelable, definable in their extent. The "difference" is (no pun): "the
difference
is existence", the sameness is nirvana (if infinite), no discernible
complexity.
No information (again in my favorite nomenclature) as "acknowledged
difference". Might call it: conscious existence, since difference equals
the
existence and "acknowledged" is conscious (e.g. a + charge by an electron).
So much about (your) 'similar concepts' of ours.
BTW the difference I see between 'my' plenitude and a nirvana is the status
between a static (n) and a dynamic (p) one. Zero (observable) information
both.
Finally you wrote:
"...from this list -- (...) I have a difficult time truly extracting
anything, let alone everything."
I do extract 'something' sometime, - my mind would not be capable to
extract everything - but I like the fresh young minds on this list, coming
up with
the craziest ideas. Sometimes older minds interfere, which I can delete,
but I believe future thinking will come out from that uninhibited blurb on
this list of many bovine excrement. So as long as they tolerate me ...
John Mikes
<jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
"
http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"
PS: I agree with your self-confession below, same here:
>
> I am simply here, and elsewhere, looking to either find additional
> insight or anything that might shoot down my theories/ideas or cause me
> to alter them
> Scott
(I had mindshaking revelations about the anthropic and the solipsistic.)
> ps: [yours]:
> AI is alive, if is believes that it is.
> AI exists because it believes that it does.
>
I guess you go for "conscious", what 'everything' is in the sense that 'it
all'
acknowledges information and responds to it?
Could you give a second example for "it" (=is?) which does not believe
to be alive or exist? (the first one is a nirvana).
John
>
Received on Sun Feb 11 2001 - 12:05:22 PST