Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 01-21-2003, 01:59 AM

luvluv,
Its not an ID concept because ID has largely focused on biological questions like front-loading, irreducible complexity and all other kinds of crap - which CTMU stands above - heck, CTMU strives to explain science.

Instead of fighting Darwinian theories his is providing a framework within which the darwinian theories can be explained, Science explains how and why evolution ( eg RM & NS) is the likely mechanism through which we came to be, but science does not explain why the laws of science work. So his is meta-scientific and he provides a meta-Darwinian message :

Quote:

"the universe evolves by hological self-replication and self-selection. Furthermore, because the universe is natural, its self-selection amounts to a cosmic form of natural selection. But by the nature of this selection process, it also bears a description of intelligent self-design (the universe is 'intelligent' because this is precisely what it must be in order to solve the problem of self-selection, the master-problem of terms of which all lesser problems are necessarily formulated).This is unsurprising, for intelligence itself is a natural phenomenon that could never have emerged in humans and animals were it not already a latent property in the medium of emergence. An object does not displace its medium but embodies it and thus serves as an expression of its underlying syntactic properties. What is far more surprising, and far more disappointing, is the ideological conflict to which this has led. It seems that one group likes the term �intelligent� but is indifferent or hostile to the term �natural�, while the other likes �natural� but abhors �intelligent�. In some strange way, the whole controversy seems to hinge on terminology."

I dont know whether Christopher Michael Langan is a theist, but I know that so far, all IDers are theists. That and the idea that God is the being behind that intelligence is why people. He spends a huge section bringing up the idea that Intelligent design does not entail that there is a sentient being responsible for that intelligence.
But by and large, IDers are supporting the theory at ARN and at ISCID

Ted Hoffman · 01-21-2003, 05:23 AM

Soderqvist1:

Quote:

I assume that, you mean that, the observer is analogous with consciousness, but that is not the Copenhagen interpretation! It is John von Neumann, Eugene Wigner 's line of interpretation! It can be found here http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Summ...oswami9901.htm

Thanks for the link. I now see the difference.

Quote:

neither interpretation is wrong, they are only different metaphysical assumptions, which is not part of science, because neither of them are testable nor falsifiable,

I dont think its that simple. First, they draw from QM so they have a basis. Some have flaws - some fatal, some not. Some are very weak logically. For example:
*Tha CI postulates that the observer obeys laws that are different from the non-observer - a return to vitalism.
*The status of the wavefunction is ambiguous: if its real, the theory is non-local (not good) if its not real, the theory offers no model for reality.
Bohm (your Von Neumann thingy) assumed implicitly that only the single branch of the wavefunction associated with the observer had self-aware observers. Everett assumes no such thing. etc etc.
So, what I am saying is, testability and unfalsifiability aside, they can be invalidated based on known models and logic etc.

Besides CI and Bohms differ sharply from MWI and the first two can't be considered as "rival" interpretations coz MWI makes different predictions from them. Interpretations do not make predictions that differ. MWI also retrodics plenty of other concepts and ideas that have no other easy interpretation. MWI's mathematic formulation is not isomorphic to the other (two) formulations of QM. Lastly, there is no reductionist and scientific alternative to MWI and the other two fail for the logical reasons some of which I have given above.
MWI is more of a metatheory. Since it explains many other theories.

Quote:

...We know through the double slit experiment, and Wheeler's delayed-chose experiment through its interference pattern, that the unmeasured electron exists as wave of possibility, but we don't know what has happen to the "ghosts electrons" when we measure the electron, either it is a collapse of a wave function, or they branches off into many worlds!

Why would they be "ghost electrons"? What would make "our" electron any more real than them?
The presence of an observer?

Quote:

I belong to the metaphysical assumption that consciousness collapses the wave function, it is not yet testable, and for the same reason it is not science, but the hypothesis is consistent with experimental findings, like all other interpretations are! The local hidden variable is disproved by John Bell's EPR experiments in the 60s, and by Aspect's experiment in the 80s, but hidden non-local variables are not disproved!

So you are for CI? Its the most fatal among the ones I know. How do you deal with the argument that the observer holds no special place under the laws of physics?

Are you a theist? Because some theists argue that God observed the universal wavefunction and it collapsed to our universe. Heh, heh.

Quote:

Soderqvist1: This is only a metaphor, which should not be taken too far! The point is that all propositions cannot be proven in a system, when Neo was in the Matrix world it was not possible to prove that that world is not real, the evidence was outside that system, now Neo knows that the real world is out side the Matrix, but if the world is real, that potential completeness evidence is even outside that system too, since for every evidence which is added to some system, this evidence end up incomplete in the system too, it is like a catch 22. Let's take some metaphor example from our real world!

Yeah, I loved the Matrix too, but the problem with that model is that one cannot have unreality within reality. And if reality is what we sense and feel, there is no mechanism for knowing whether or not we are in reality, because Neo et al still used the same senses to sense reality. So it was an arbitrary manner of deciding what is or is NOT reality. What if what was unreal is what they thought was real? What if they themselves never existed and were instead the thoughts/imagination of those human bioelectric cells "grown" in that place? There was a time I watched an episode of Outer Limits some guys put to sleep in those cyronics places and they had lucid dreams and one of them was controlling the rest in their "world". There is no difference in experience between a lucid dream and the living experience. What would they have used to prove that they were or werent in the matrix? You tell me.

Follow the White Rabbit Neo... (yeah, I liked that. You know, I only connected it to the rabbit on the womans shoulder the second time I watched the movie - heh, heh)

Quote:

Both you, and I know that there is a huge quantity of propositions in the world! My point is that; we can see the quantity, but the quantity cannot be formalized in the same system! For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are 10 propositions! Will my own proposition here, be one of these propositions, or is my own proposition number 11? If you say that: yes your own proposition is included, and thus there are 11 propositions in the world! Is it? Isn't your own proposition to me here the number 12? The numbers of observed propositions are not computable, and are thus undecidable in the system! Metaphorically, the estimation about how many propositions there are in this system is a-non-computational-mathematical-insight!

Wow, wow, relax, you have lost me there. What is your proposition?

Quote:

Logical syllogism is also incomplete, since there are propositions, which are undecidable! This proposition is decidable; all humans are mortals, all philosophers are humans, therefore all philosophers are mortals!

Aren't all philosophers mortals? Your point?

Quote:

Do you get the feeling about what g�del 's theorem means with; " a consistency proof cannot be formalized in a system?

I think he is referring to the same same self-referential problem we see in empiricism which is referred to as "the problem of induction".

Thats where CTMU steps in.IMHO. With its SCSPL and a supertautological universe which refines itself recursively under the telic principle.

Peter Soderqvist · 01-22-2003, 12:35 AM

I am too bored to reply!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-22-2003, 12:35 AM	#23
Peter Soderqvist Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sweden Stockholm Posts: 233	I am too bored to reply!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.