On Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:03:51 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 2/14/2013 5:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:46:26 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King > wrote: >> >> On 2/13/2013 8:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> [SPK wrote: ]I like the idea of a Matrix universe exactly for that >>> reason; it takes resources to 'run' it. No free lunch, even for universes!!! >>> >> >> You can still have the idea of resources if the universe isn't a >> simulation though. No particular diffraction tree within the supreme monad >> can last as long as the Absolute diffraction, so the clock is always >> running and every motive carries risk. >> >> >> Right, but since we do have the resources, why not assume that the >> Matrix is up and running on them already? >> > > I don't see the advantage of a Matrix running on a non-Matrix vs just a > non-Matrix totality though. > > ACK!<https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0oSEgcZZVrascuppptCDDVSONLD2DxKE-JGirCvuRag8-LT3o> > > You sound like Dennett, defending material monism! >
Not material, experience. > Or, to be more charitable, flattening the infinite levels of the > transduction into a single fabric. Don't do that! > The fabric is figurative - i'm just talking about the unity of all sense being more primordial than space or time. > The 'non-Matrix' is the level for a given 1p that cannot be deformed. It > is the point where the model of the system is the system. > I don't think there are any models or systems at all. Not physically. There are only presentations and re-presentations. Habits and inertia. Craig > > > >> The fun thing is that if we have both then we have a nice solution to >> both the mind (for matter) and body (for comp) problems. There can be no >> 'supreme monad' as such would be equivalent to a preferred frame and basis. >> The totality of all that exists is not a hierarchy, it is a fractal network. >> > > The supreme monad is just everything which is undiffracted, i.e. the > single thread that the whole tapestry of tapestries is made of...which is > itself one giant (or infinitesimally small) tapestry seed. Size isn't > relevant because size is part of the tapestry, not the thread. > > Craig > > > OK, but can you see that what you are talking about (the Supreme > Monad) is a giant monism? We need to cover both sides, the dual aspects. As > I see it, when we jump up to a Supreme Monad we are required to fuzz out > all distinctions that are relevant at the 1p level. The Sense of the > Supreme monad is an undistinguished Nothing. It cannot have any particular > features of properties. > > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
