tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1231185357032365360.post6447123684750236817..comments2016-12-05T11:16:45.764-05:00Comments on Mindspace & Minds' Basis: Universe, Physics and SimulationE. Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00403451420766076432noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1231185357032365360.post-70956408609028680682016-12-05T11:16:45.764-05:002016-12-05T11:16:45.764-05:00Thanks for your comment. I agree, especially on th...Thanks for your comment. I agree, especially on the last point - see <a href="http://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-first-approximation-to-mindspace.html" rel="nofollow">A First Approximation to Mindspace</a>, the first real post on my blog. The second post, <a href="http://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/06/compression-entanglement-and-possible.html" rel="nofollow"> "Compression, Entanglement and a Possible Basis for Morphic Fields"</a> is another take on the compression argument from the view of thermodynamics.<br /><br />Also this bit of <a href="http://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/06/outline-of-relation-of-quantum.html" rel="nofollow">another post</a> is relevant:<br /><br />* Quantum Mechanics requires information theory<br />*.. Theories, measurements are just information<br />*...... Distinguishable states must differ by >=1 bit<br />*.......... No outside agency besides the 2 minimally differing states can do the distinguishing between themselves.<br />*.............. Otherwise the theory would have to explain how the 3rd thing distinguishes not only the 2 original entities from each other but also how it distinguishes itself from the other two as well.<br />*.............. This requisite ability to distinguish is logically part of every distinguishable entity.<br />*.............. This logical nature, this ability to distinguish information, is not just the basis for consciousness but a basic form of consciousness itself.<br /><br /><br />That derived from Chris Langan's (1 in 1e6 IQ society president) "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU) which is a non-sectatian intelligent design theory.<br />E. Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00403451420766076432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1231185357032365360.post-26307521996447862992016-12-04T09:40:30.699-05:002016-12-04T09:40:30.699-05:00Indeed.
[Post date: 12-04-16]
"It could als...Indeed.<br /><br />[Post date: 12-04-16]<br /><br />"It could also be possible that the universe is natural (more-or-less), with the simulation-like aspects being not artifacts but implicit in the universe's necessary informational self-consistency. Nevertheless, conscious beings arising in the natural universe could learn to hack it from the inside, causing glitches and intimations of purposefulness for other, less adept residents of the universe. ... Perhaps in the beginning was the inconsistency 0=1 : the big bang followed because all propositions and their opposites can be derived from a single contradiction -- but there are branching patterns in the successive derivations of implications from that initial seed."<br /><br />In my view, limited to an extremely small corner of the Universe, some trillions and trillions of atoms, this passage suggests some support for the idea of Intelligent Design, at least as I define ID.<br /><br />In no particular order, because I haven't sorted out all the issues that I think pertain, I submit:<br /><br />1. Design is iterative, and it can look or simulate very closely, blind evolution, with subsequent designs improving on previous ones.<br /><br />2. Intelligence makes mistakes, which vary according to the aggresgate intelligence of the designer, in some way that can be at least discussed, if not modeled mathematically. Some mistakes can appear to be 'glitches in the matrix'.<br /><br />3. It seems unlikely, to me at least, that mankind has to be the first and only instantiation of a self conscious, intelligent being, exercising what looks to be free will over various physical pieces of the Universe.<br /><br />4. One way to test the hypothesis of an earlier intelligence is to first, look for it intuitively, realizing, that like background radiation, finding an earlier intelligence will necessarily be an exercise in detecting subtlety. As the intuitive search algorithms fail upon empirical examination, a definition of intelligence can be honed. <br /><br />5. If the Universe were a simulation, then the premise of Asimov's story, "The Last Question" may not be far off the mark.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question<br /><br />Additionally, were the universe a simulation, then its designed, teleological properties are exactly along the lines of quantum mechanics and other human derived explanatory mechanisms, the theories of which are themselves being designed along the lines of intuitive directed inquiry or search.<br /><br />6. And yes, to me, "conscious beings arising in the natural universe could learn to hack it from the inside". We see this in politics, industry, software, even the child's play on the playground.<br /><br />7. I'm thinking that intelligence is a fundamental property of the Universe, like mass, gravitation, charge, the three dimensions, time, and so forth. At some point in the continuum, the "intimations of purposefulness" are purposefulness. Not only, I think, is the universe turtles all the way down, it is turtles all the way up, otherwise, infinity has no meaning.<br /><br />So there!Ivan Oranrofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11291714286596452639noreply@blogger.com