Re: Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

ssible and perhaps plausible metaphysics, though of course it needs furter elaboration. P. Op dinsdag 21 augustus 2018 11:14:02 UTC+2 schreef Peter Sas: > > Might be of interest: > > > https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfol

Re: Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

Hi Bruno, Thanks for your comments. It is not my intention to presuppose a physical reality independent of consciousness. Very simply put, I start with absolute (prereflective) self-awareness (ASA) as explanatory primitive (indeed, as self-causing), then I argue that this ASA through its inne

Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

Might be of interest: https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html -- 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

What is Löbianity? What is its relation to self-consciousness?

Hi everybody, I have a question for you: What is Löbianity? What is its relation to self-consciousness? I know the work of Löb has to do with arithmetical self-reference (as it figures in Gödel's proof for incompleteness). Obviously, that self-reference is the link with self-consciousness...

Re: 9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

ive -- I think -- of a computationalized absolute idealism Finally, to Telmo: I cling to the notion of (self-)causation because Leibniz's questions asks for a reason behind existence, i.e. a cause (which makes something exist). Greetings, Peter Op dinsdag 21 juni 2016 13:04:30 UTC

Re: 9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

Mitch, I don't now if my 'theory' (I hesitate to call it that) implies an afterlife. I certainly think there is an immortal core to each empirical individual self-consciousness, but this core is trans-individual, the one Absolute Self-Awareness in which we all share... Wether this immortality e

9 remarks on absolute idealism 2.0

Hi everybody, I wrote a blog piece where I combine absolute idealism ('all of reality is one self-consciousness') with digital physics and computability theory: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2016/06/9-remarks-on-absolute-idealism-20_32.html I would love to hear your critical comm

Re: Question about universal dovetailer

Hi Bruno, Thanks for your answer. It is indeed still not entirely clear to me. On the one hand you wrote "It does not dovetail on non computable functions, which have no algorithm". On the other hand you wrote:"It dovetails because, indeed, some program will not stop". But a program that doesn

Question about universal dovetailer

Hi guys and girls, I have a question about the concept of the universal dovetailer. I understand that the necessity to postulate the UD follows from the Halting Problem (HP): since there are uncomputable functions from N to N, and since because of the HP there is no algorithm for deciding which

Re: MM + ZFC = MNP?

I meant: ∅ = the Plotinian One? -- 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 e

MM + ZFC = MNP?

Mathematical Neoplatonism = Mathematical monism + Zermelo-Frankel set theory? = the Plotinian One? Is the derivation of hierarchy V from ∅ the formal structure of the hierarchical emanation of reality by the One? Possible or nonsense? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

He is also a big fan of Josiah Royce. > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfDB35y-5Z0 > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTcQp1bTKHA > > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Sas > > To: Everything List > > Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 8:02 am > Su

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

Hi Mike, That film looks like a lot of fun... How can I see it? Can I order a copy online? Here by the way is my latest blog post on the platform problem in digital physics and the relation to consciousness: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2015/09/is-universe-self-computing-consci

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

at define > a universe, a multiverse, or only a multi-dream. > > You have NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL APPEARANCES => HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > On 26 Aug 2015, at 10:02, Peter Sas wrote: > > I thought Tipler'

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

Personally my brain stack overflows at about 3 or 4 levels of being aware that I am aware that ... I am aware. I think it would require infinite memory to truly be aware of an infinite number of steps in such a recursive relation. Maybe the infinite hierarchy doesn't have to be thought/remember

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

I thought Tipler's theory is that there will be an actual physical computer that will be able to do all possible computations as the Universe collapses - although since he came up with the idea it has been shown that the Universe won't collapse in the required way. Yes, it's not Tipler's main t

If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

Hi guys and girls, I'm sure this question has already come up many times before, but it's an important one, so I guess it can't do any harm to go over it again. If the universe is thoroughly computational, what are the computations 'running' on? What I especially like to know is what options ar

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Here is a new blog piece I wrote: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/11/the-inconsistency-of-nothing-objective_17.html Here I use some of the tools of analytical philosophy to analyze the logical impossibility of nothinness... For the philosophically inclined among you... Peter

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

Haha... a glas of wine and a lie down seems like the appropriate response either way! But your response is clarifying... It's like the idea of the zero-energy universe but in informational terms... The universe is 'substantially' nothing, and we and our surroundings are 'just' its mutually canc

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's head to understand the mathematics :) I hope you don't mind answering some questions in advance. You wrote: Exactly. The source of the symmetry breaking

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

I've read it and considered it and I think it's bollocks... though there are some interesting ideas in there, e.g. that in information-theoretic terms nothingness can be described as an infini

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

No to both questions? Op donderdag 13 november 2014 03:06:36 UTC+1 schreef Brent: > > On 11/12/2014 7:10 AM, Peter Sas wrote: > > Does anybody know this paper: > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X > > > > And is it any good?

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

Yes I came across that joke on the net... Op donderdag 13 november 2014 08:31:08 UTC+1 schreef Liz R: > > By the way, the sum of all the integers from 1 to infinity is not zero but > -1/12 > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww > -- You received this message because you are subscribe

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

I've read it... well I've read parts of it anyway... I downloaded a copy from the net, I don't know if that's also the final book version of his Theory of Nothing... The problem is I'm not too good with mathematical and logical formalisms (I have dyscalculia, I mix the symbols up)... So what I

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

The authors want to give an information-theoretic answer to the question why there is something rather than nothing. They hold that the question is only answerable if one starts the explanation from a situation where nothing exists. They then give an information-theoretic account of nothing and

"Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

Does anybody know this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X And is it any good? -- 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 e

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

What is at the centre of the Universe, if the Universe does have a centre? Or does everything appear to be moving away from everything equally in all directions, and the Universe appears equally deep in all directions from every point in space? If the Universe is an expanding sphere, where is th

Re: Methusalem problem for MWI?

O.K. I think I get it... The number of branches in which people miraculously survive is astronomically lower than the number of branches where people die according to the odds Hence the likelihood that our world contains Methuselah's (in Dutch we say Methusalem) is close to zero. Thanks for

Methusalem problem for MWI?

O.K. so here is a question to which there is perhaps an easy answer... I've been searching the net for an answer, but I can't find one... So please enlighten me! On this forum MWI is probably the most popular interpretation of QM. As Moravec, Bruno Marchal and Tegmark have argued, WMI implies q

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Bruno, I would like to let you know that I read two of your papers, which I found very interesting (even if the technical bits are a bit beyond me), but that I can't respond right now, since we are in the middle of moving to a new house. I will get back in touch with you later to discuss mac

everything-list@googlegroups.com

Obviously I meant MWI where I wrote WMI... -- 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

everything-list@googlegroups.com

Well, in defence of poor old Kant, let us remember that together with Laplace he was the discoverer of the nebular hypothesis about the formation of solar systems... I gues a similar story holds about galaxies... So the man was not totally useless. And of course there is a strong Kantian aspec

everything-list@googlegroups.com

Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna know is this: can all the foces mediated by the bosons be described as attractions or repulsions between the fermions? Or is that way too simplist

everything-list@googlegroups.com

True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic... Please don't hold back when I say something stupid... -- 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

everything-list@googlegroups.com

science possible. And that is a very Kantian approach... Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 03:26:09 UTC+1 schreef John Clark: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 Peter Sas > wrote: > > > Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of >> attractive and repulsive

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

I wonder if you know the work of the French philosopher Badiou. He has built an entire ontology on set theory, taking the empty set (or the void as dramatically calls it) as his most fundamental concept. He takes over the Von Neumann derivation of math in terms of set theory and then adopts a k

everything-list@googlegroups.com

Sorry about that last line... I forgot to delete that... -- 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

everything-list@googlegroups.com

Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on 'dynamics

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;) -- 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 gro

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

First my apologies to you and Brent for the mix up. I'm new to this wonderful forum, and the format still disorients me a bit... which is why the universe exists in the first place, that is, it is not > nothing (= ontological difference). > > You wrote: That looks like a play with word, which d

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Brent, Thanks for your comments, which are very useful, even if the more technical comments are beyond me (I have to study up on that). Thanks for the tip about category theory, I vaguely heard about it... I know it is a rival to set theory when it comes to founding math (insofar that is pos

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Wow... That's quite shocking! I see I have to be much more careful in taking over what the pop science writers say... Unfortunately, physics is a subject where the text books tend to carry > more weight than the popular presentations. The text books show that the > claims about the zero net

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Bruce, Thanks for your explanation, but I'm afraid it doesn't really help me. The main reason is no doubt my own stupidity, since most of what you say goes over my head. I understand some physics, but it must be explained to me in non-mathematical terms, otherwise I don't get (I have asperg

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Brent, On my account, beings (i.e. all things that are) lack intrinsic qualities because they are defined through their differences from each other. Thus a being is what it is simply by not being something else. So in themselves, abstracted from their relations to other beings, beings 'are'

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi Richard, I must stress that this is all new territory for me, but what I gather from the things I've read so far is that dark energy is a form of positive energy balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So here too some kind of polarity seems to hold. The point is that as space expands, d

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

to publish a fuller account on my blog in the near future. . Op woensdag 22 oktober 2014 15:46:16 UTC+2 schreef yanniru: > > Peter, > > Could you elaborate on how Dark Energy fits into your thesis? > Richard > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Peter Sas > wrote: > &

Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Hi guys, Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe