I hope an evolved Nick still has eyebrows. I'd miss the eyebrows. On Sep 17, 2012 6:19 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Glen Wrote:**** > > ** ** > > . *In so doing, I accused Nick of having asserted that faith underlies > all reality. I expected him to evolve during the course of the > conversation to explain what actions constitute "faith". If we got that > far, then we'd have Nick's physical theory of everything! Those actions > would be the (or at least a) fundamental constitutive component of all > other things.***** > > ** ** > > This is a really good question. Nobody has ever asked me to do that > before. I am suddenly made aware of why Peirce wrote some of the tortured > passages he wrote. I am going to have to think about this. **** > > ** ** > > In the meantime, Eric may be able to tell you what an evolved Nick will > say. **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On > Behalf Of glen > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 7:48 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people > > ** ** > > Arlo Barnes wrote at 09/17/2012 04:03 PM:**** > > > But what if the compressible class turns out to be the same as the **** > > > uncompressible class?**** > > ** ** > > Well, even if that's true in principle, as long as there is a predicate to > slice them all into two sets: 1) really really hard to compress vs.**** > > 2) pretty easy to compress, we still have a fundamental, practical, and > measurable difference between say humans and thermostats, respectively.*** > * > > ** ** > > > It seems the only way to tell is to test every possible case, as you *** > * > > > say in your second paragraph.**** > > ** ** > > I don't think it's as much a matter of classifying every possible system > into one or the other classes. I can see a nice ivory tower job (or > perhaps an employee of the justice dept) for such a taxonomist. But most > of us merely want to handle 80% of the cases well. It's OK if I can't > determine which class Nick, Doug, or any one individual falls into or even > if they spew disinformation to make me mis-classify them. As long as I can > get most zombies and actors in the right class.**** > > ** ** > > > What it comes down to, though, is that, again as you say, you are **** > > > talking about knowledge, how people model the world. But do you [not] ** > ** > > > believe there is a world if there is nobody to model it?**** > > ** ** > > Let me rephrase it to avoid the whole "conscious observer" thing. Is > there a super system if all sub-systems are compressible? Yes, > absolutely. Just because there exists some part of the universe that can > adequately model any given part of the universe does _not_ imply that the > universe doesn't exist.**** > > ** ** > > The real problem we face if there are no incompressible sub-sytems is one > of "first cause" or ad infinitum. If every detail out there is completely > explainable from its initial conditions, then what was the cause of the > initial conditions? (We'll find ourselves looking for "the one true Actor" > in patterns in the cosmic background radiation!) But if we posit that, > say, empty space is really a dense foam of incompressible systems, then all > we need do is look for a way to scale up.**** > > ** ** > > > COuld there not be the objective**** > > > fact of physical laws, even if they are never articulated, or at least * > *** > > > not correctly or fully?**** > > ** ** > > No, not the way I'm using the word "law" (and based on my own private > definition of "articulated" ;-). An unimplemented "law" is a "thought", > which as I said a few posts ago, in this rhetoric anyway, is not real.**** > > It's a convenient fiction that helps some of our subsystems maintain > control over other of our subsystems. But an implemented law (like a > computer program and the machine that executes it) _is_ what's objective. > Not only are implementations what is real, they are the _only_ thing that's > real. (The word "implementation" is unfortunate because it implies the > existence of an abstract thing that's being implemented. So I really > shouldn't use that word ... I should use "realization" or somesuch that has > a higher ontological status.)**** > > ** ** > > Note that I started this rhetorical position in response to Nick's > assertion that there always exists "faith" at the bottom of any > justification. In order to make my rhetoric interesting, I have to take a > hard line and agree with Nick that things like beliefs are simply > collections of actions. Hence, all things in the class containing beliefs > (including laws) are not really things, at least not in and of themselves. > In so doing, I accused Nick of having asserted that faith underlies all > reality. I expected him to evolve during the course of the conversation to > explain what actions constitute "faith". If we got that far, then we'd > have Nick's physical theory of everything! Those actions would be the (or > at least a) fundamental constitutive component of all other things.**** > > ** ** > > As usual, the conversation hasn't gone the way I wanted. Dammit. >8D But > I'll still hold my final trump card to my chest just in case it takes a > turn back in my favor.**** > > ** ** > > --**** > > glen**** > > ** ** > > ============================================================**** > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv**** > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
