Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense. Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop re

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

By contrast, Smolin's idea is taken very seriously by this list. For example, it is mentioned not once, but twice in my book (page 49 and 102). Cheers On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:16:59PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: > http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answe

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the global concept of purpose. The use of this word is about my only gripe with it. I could be wrong. Cheers, K On 05/02/2013, at 6:47 PM, Russell St

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really. Cheers On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: > So does this explain the PURPOSE of the universe or merely a dominant > FUNCTION? The blind exercise of function doesn't seem to me to include the > global c

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

I doubt that meaning, existence, creation, purpose makes sense when applied to the mathematical nature of the external reality. I think that these concepts only makes sense when though by a mind. So either we reject these concepts when thinking about the universe (and this makes reasoning almost i

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to make it meaningless. On 2/5/2013 6:23 AM, Russell Standish wrote: Only in the same sense that evolution is teleological, ie not really. Cheers On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 06:59:01PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote: So does

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote: http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense. It is full of sense, but a bit trivial, and then he uses implicitly comp, but fail to generalize its approac

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Feb 2013, at 08:16, Kim Jones wrote: > > http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer > > > OK - so rip into it and say why it's all nonsense. > > > It is full of sense, but a bit trivial, and

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

Hi Kim Jones I thought that black holes destroy rather than create. That only life can create. - Receiving the following content - From: Kim Jones Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-02-05, 02:16:59 Subject: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success http://io9.com/5981472

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Hi, > > ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is > to make it meaningless. > > Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of probabilistic replication implies any 1p significance

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013/2/5 Stephen P. King > Hi, > > ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to > make it meaningless. > > > That´s it. But to insist into make the question in 3p may force the introduction of an implicit 1p that contemplate the 3p, that is, a metamind , with a m

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: > > > > > 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King > > >> Hi, >> >> ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to >> make it meaningless. >> >> >> That´s it. > > > But to insist into make the question in 3p may f

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 2/5/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:53:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to make it meaningless. Yeah, I don't see how noting that the 3p mechanism of proba

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King > Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to make it meaningless. That´s it. But to insist into make the question in 3p may force the intr

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

It may be that like all CREATIVE endeavours (including evolution), the purpose of the universe is what the universe is endeavouring to engender. In other words, the universe has no purpose until that purpose comes into being. When the universe (or multiverse or whatever) manages to create its pu

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013/2/6 Stephen P. King > On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > > > 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King > >> Hi, >> >> ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to >> make it meaningless. >> >> >> That´s it. > > > But to insist into make the question in 3p may

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 2/6/2013 3:43 AM, Kim Jones wrote: It may be that like all CREATIVE endeavours (including evolution), the purpose of the universe is what the universe is endeavouring to engender. In other words, the universe has no purpose until that purpose comes into being. When the universe (or multivers

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 2/6/2013 4:22 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/6 Stephen P. King > On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to make it meaningless. That´s it. But to insist into make the

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 06 Feb 2013, at 10:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/6 Stephen P. King On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is to make it meaningless. That´s it. But to insist into ma

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:50:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

2013/2/6 Bruno Marchal > > On 06 Feb 2013, at 10:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > > > 2013/2/6 Stephen P. King > >> On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question in a 3p sense is

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 06 Feb 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:50:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:27:27 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King Hi, ISTM that

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 06 Feb 2013, at 20:36, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/6 Bruno Marchal On 06 Feb 2013, at 10:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/6 Stephen P. King On 2/5/2013 3:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/2/5 Stephen P. King Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so to ask the question

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 2/7/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Math is ambiguous on that. A priori, yes. But once we assume computationalism in cognitive science, then we can accept that when numbers, relatively to other numbers, behave in some ways (self-reference, etc.) they get mind, or at least some mind can

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:50:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Feb 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:50:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 05 Feb 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 5, 20

Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

On 07 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/7/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Math is ambiguous on that. A priori, yes. But once we assume computationalism in cognitive science, then we can accept that when numbers, relatively to other numbers, behave in some ways (self-reference

Re: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

Hi Kim Jones Life seems to be the only thing in the universe that has purpose-- which is, or course, to create more life. - Receiving the following content - From: Kim Jones Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-05, 02:59:01 Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Su

Re: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success

Hi Stephen P. King Anything that has a purpose is teleological. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-05, 07:53:22 Subject: Re: Lee Smolin and Darwin's Uncommon Success Hi, ISTM that purpose is a 1p, so t