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

From: Alberto Gómez <agcorona.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:24:03 +0100

For me there is no bigger step between to wonder about how conscience

arises from a universe made by atoms in a Newtonian universe, particles

in a quantum universe, quarks in a quantum relativistic universe and

finally, superstring/n-branes in a 11 dimensional universe for one side

and, on the other side, to wonder about how SAS in a complex enough

mathematical structure can have a sense of conscience.

Conscience has evolutionary advantages in biological terms, and probably

the conscience will emerge, with time, in any description in which the

rules permit a replication-with-variations/selection and where one

objects feeds from others. It doesn't matter if the description is made

of n-branes in 11 dimensional spaces or in any other

mathematical/algorithmical construct.

These self aware structures in their particular space-time will describe

trajectories in which a superintelligent and supradimensional observer

could see, inside the SAS, some components: neurons, or alike, that

shows signs of troughs about themselves and the rest of their world in a

way that interactions between SAS will depend on the changes of their

brains -or something like brains-. This is the most that an external

observer can experience about the conscience of other beings. These

beings will think, so they will exist -and they will think that they

exist, that is crucial - . That must be true either in our "physical"

world or the world of a geometrical figure in a n-dimensional spacetime,

or in a computer simulation defined by a complex enough algorithm (These

three alternative ways of describing universes may be isomorphic, being

the first a particular case or not. The computability of our universe

doesn't matter for this question).

So the mathematical existence, when SAS are possible inside the

mathematical formulation, implies existence (the expression "physical

existence" may be a redundancy)

But, for these mathematical descriptions to exist, it is necessary the

existence of being with a higher dimensionality and intelligence that

formulate these mathematical descriptions? That is: every mathematical

object does exist outside of any conscience? The issue is not to

question that "mathematical existence (with SAS) implies physical

existence", (according with the above arguments it is equivalent). The

question is the mathematical existence itself.

Received on Thu Nov 06 2003 - 03:45:35 PST

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:24:03 +0100

For me there is no bigger step between to wonder about how conscience

arises from a universe made by atoms in a Newtonian universe, particles

in a quantum universe, quarks in a quantum relativistic universe and

finally, superstring/n-branes in a 11 dimensional universe for one side

and, on the other side, to wonder about how SAS in a complex enough

mathematical structure can have a sense of conscience.

Conscience has evolutionary advantages in biological terms, and probably

the conscience will emerge, with time, in any description in which the

rules permit a replication-with-variations/selection and where one

objects feeds from others. It doesn't matter if the description is made

of n-branes in 11 dimensional spaces or in any other

mathematical/algorithmical construct.

These self aware structures in their particular space-time will describe

trajectories in which a superintelligent and supradimensional observer

could see, inside the SAS, some components: neurons, or alike, that

shows signs of troughs about themselves and the rest of their world in a

way that interactions between SAS will depend on the changes of their

brains -or something like brains-. This is the most that an external

observer can experience about the conscience of other beings. These

beings will think, so they will exist -and they will think that they

exist, that is crucial - . That must be true either in our "physical"

world or the world of a geometrical figure in a n-dimensional spacetime,

or in a computer simulation defined by a complex enough algorithm (These

three alternative ways of describing universes may be isomorphic, being

the first a particular case or not. The computability of our universe

doesn't matter for this question).

So the mathematical existence, when SAS are possible inside the

mathematical formulation, implies existence (the expression "physical

existence" may be a redundancy)

But, for these mathematical descriptions to exist, it is necessary the

existence of being with a higher dimensionality and intelligence that

formulate these mathematical descriptions? That is: every mathematical

object does exist outside of any conscience? The issue is not to

question that "mathematical existence (with SAS) implies physical

existence", (according with the above arguments it is equivalent). The

question is the mathematical existence itself.

Received on Thu Nov 06 2003 - 03:45:35 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST
*