Re: Constraints on "everything existing"

From: Jean-Michel Veuillen <veuillen.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:46:35 +0100

At 08:40 PM 1/17/2003 -0800, Eric Hawthorne wrote:
>John M wrote:
>
>>Eric:
>>
>>do I detect in your 'circumstances' some 'anthropocentric/metric/logic'
>>restrictions? is the multiverse exclusively built according to the system
>>we devised on this planet as 'our physical laws'? (your 'factor' #1,
>>although you oincluded in factor #2 the (CLASSICAL existence) modifier.)
>>
>>Brings to mind Mr Square's opponents in Abbott's Flatland, with the 2-D
>>vs 3-D joke.
>>
>It may seem that way (anthropocentric) but when I say "intelligent
>observer" I mean "any kind of intelligent observer" or couched
>in some more terminology "any emergent system or pattern
>that functions as an intelligent observer."
>
>So no, I'm not talking about a human-centric anthropic principle,
>I'm talking about an "arbitrary intelligent observer", generically
>defined. As you would expect, I would guess that there are
>some pretty tight constraints on how an intelligent observer
>would have to function to be considered such, but "human" is
>definitely too narrow a definition of it.
>
>I see "intelligent observer production" as being a threshold level of
>organization achieved by certain
>constraint regimes on "all sequences of state changes".
>
>Of course, as a thought experiment, you could set a lower threshold
>criterion for "fully existing worlds", such as the ability to be organized
>enough to produce "some interesting (non-trivial) stable emergent systems
>that seem to exhibit some higher-level functions
>including self-preserving functions".
>
>Unless a world (i.e. a sequence of information state changes)
>has produced intelligent observers though, there will be
>no one around in it to argue whether it exists or not.

Then our universe did not exist before there were intelligent observers in it,
which is not true.

I think that is better to say that all self-consistent mathematical
structures exist.
To restrict existence to universes containing SASs (self-aware structures)
is not only is very cumbersome but leads to contradictions.


On another subject, I read on the list that different universes cannot
communicate.
I see at least one possibility for communication: One scientist in our
universe implements a
computer simulation of an universe containing SASs. The scientist could
then communicate
with them.

There is also of course the possibility that we ourselves live in a
computer simulation




>Which brings us around to the conclusion that after all,
>the question of "classical existence or not" of some world
>is only ever a concern of intelligent observers. It is
>not really a concern for the non-thinking aspects of
>worlds or potential worlds, precisely because those parts
>are content to just be, or maybe be, as the case may be.
>Those parts are just "the potential for information".
>Only when something comes along that cares to conceptualize
>about the various possibilities borne of different states
>of information, does there arise a question of existence,
>and then, it is a question of existence from the perspective
>of those that can observe and care about such things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 20 2003 - 03:48:33 PST