John, On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:51 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian, > you can count on me to support you for the verbosity medal. In your > longlong blurb 4 lines are randomly printed, but from the 5th to the 2nd > from bottom there is an empty word-space at ~60% of the lines, neetly > arranged as an internal (in-text) margin. I admired it. > Yes, I admired the pattern in the visual layout of the non-random as well. Thanks. It reminds me of some sort of infinite logic. Also, I'm glad I can at least cheat to be more verbose than some others here as I often desire to maintain quantity as well as quality, whatever quality is. People can spend their whole lives studying quality without knowing how to output quality while others do nothing more than put out a high volume of material. Neither of those two cases seem to apply to the everything list which is why I enjoy it so. (Presently, I'm -only- thinking of the book Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which is a chautauqua about someone whose sole purpose in life seemed to center around a quest to find out what quality is.) Interesting that we seem to agree on what random is. -Perhaps- random strings of numbers can -only- be produced by that which is deem-able as conscious and/or self-aware, which ties it into Tegmark's SAS theories. So in that event, i.e., if randomness is a trait possessed -only- by that which is conscious, then the universe would appear to be conscious in that QM events are also deem-able as random. So then the statement could be this: Idea: <<If measurements have no detectable pattern [**] then that which led to those measurements is (at least a module in the mind of) a conscious being. This conscious being may or may not be self aware, i.e., possess the minimum requirements of a SAS (self-aware structure).>> [**] This means, just for the sake of argument and/or communication, that a standardized method of compressing the numeric values into the smallest form which is applied, for the purpose of comparison, universally to all sets of data and that, according to this standard compression algorithm, such as that which is used to compress a data archive, the compression ratio is the same, within tolerance, as that which is known to be random such as that of QM events. Now if I got through that -without- comma splicing, I would be a bit annoyed with myself as I strive to be perfectly -imperfect-, whatever perfection and non-perfection mean. To recapitulate, the statement of the idea is this: [1] Randomness implies consciousness. The converse appears to be false. [2] SAS implies consciousness. The converse appears to be false. <consider a one-second-old frog, for example> So if x is a 'thing', let the predicates R( ), C( ), and S( ) denote the meaning behind these statements: R(x) means x is random. To elaborate, it should be more like R([x]) where [x] is some numeric code associated to x like the Godel number of the wff x. (I know I spelled that name wrong, btw) Furthermore, C(x) means x is conscious and S(x) means x is self-aware (possibly meaning it is self-referential like Wolpert's self-aware devices). Then the trees of implications seems to be this and not reversible universally: [idea 1] R([x]) ==> C(x) [idea 2] S(x) ==> C(x). To re-recap: if x is any utterance, such as a wff, R([x]) ==> C(x) <== S(x), and convincing examples exist of why those implications are not biconditional, i.e., equivalences. Cheers Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
