Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:07:47 -0500

Dear George,

    If I might advance a minor change: Descartes' dictum should be: Cognito (I think),
ergo eram (therefore I was). The observation of one's state of existence is always
*after* the fact of the thought. This points to the possibility that the chaining
implicit in "conscious flow (time)" is in the "opposite direction" to the logical
linking.

Kindest regards,

Stephen

George Levy wrote:

> The exchange between Bruno and Juergens is, I believe, instructive and constructive
> as it forces them to refine their positions. However, while there is a need for
> some formalism, too much formalism gets in the way. As Einstein said, "Imagination
> is more important than knowledge."
>
> Juergens' insistence on being absolutely formal in defining delays, is truly
> impossible unless a TOE is in place. And if we had a TOE, then we wouldn't waste
> our time arguing. His constructivist approach can never achieve the required
> conceptual leap.
>
> Here is a suggestion: rather than getting bogged down with attempting to define
> time and delays, wouldn't be simpler to start as Descartes did with the fundamental
>
> assumption of the "I" or "I think" which is the primary uncontrovertible
> observation and also the necessary assumption for deriving everything else. From
> this observation (or assumption), use anthropic reasonning to deduce that the whole
> observed world is a set of logically linked relationship.
>
> In other words:
> I think
> (observation of the "I" and the "now"; I am rational, logical, I understand
> causality)
>
> therefore I am
> ( rationality is the definition of existence)
>
> therefore the world is
> (anthropic reasoning-- the initial boundary condition for the causal chain starts
> with "I")
>
> therefore the plenitude is
> (absence of irrational and acausal arbitrariness in the description of the world
> leads to all possible rational worlds)
>
> therefore "I" exists in plural
> (absence of arbitrariness leads to the existence of several differing "I's," in
> fact of all possible "I's.")
>
> Conscious flow (time) becomes a logical linkage between "I's." In other words, the
> time thread from one "I" to the next, or more generally, from one "I" to several
> other "I's" is constrained by the self rationality of "I." Consciousness can be
> described as a web in the plenitude, linking all conscious points together.
>
> George
Received on Sun Feb 18 2001 - 09:11:05 PST