Earthchild at Thinkers

Extropia DaSilva: Welcome to Thinkers!
[2011/11/15 15:33]  Extropia DaSilva: Today the topic is….
[2011/11/15 15:33]  Extropia DaSilva: WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE: Why are we here? Because we can only exist somewhere that is able to support our kind of life. That, in a nutshell, is how the weak anthropic principle answers that question. This reply is often seen as unsatisfactory. Why?
[2011/11/15 15:33]  Zobeid Zuma: Ponies!
[2011/11/15 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: No, wait. . . Weak Anthropic Principle! Yay!
[2011/11/15 15:34]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Tara and Frederick 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:34]  ArtCrash Exonar: Because it is a circular arguement
[2011/11/15 15:34]  Earthchild: sounds logical
[2011/11/15 15:34]  Khannea Suntzu: Khannea Suntzu looks suspiciously at the damn spiderlover.
[2011/11/15 15:35]  Extropia DaSilva: You mean like a tautology, Art?
[2011/11/15 15:35]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hey Art 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:35]  Frederick Hansome: Hello all
[2011/11/15 15:35]  Zobeid Zuma: And if we were some *other* kind of life, we’d use it as an explanation for why we were *there*. :/
[2011/11/15 15:35]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Lem 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:35]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It is more of a tautology than circular.
[2011/11/15 15:35]  Ivy Sunkiller: it’s more of “the question why are we here is wrong/stupid/misplaced – make your pick”
[2011/11/15 15:36]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it says we exist in a place because the place allows us to exist there. it doesn’t explain anything.
[2011/11/15 15:36]  Lem Skall: I think one of the questions impied in that one is whether there are any parallel worlds too
[2011/11/15 15:36]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I think in part it’s a case of human stuck-up-ness…
[2011/11/15 15:36]  Lem Skall: implied*
[2011/11/15 15:36]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): We *want* to be special and important….
[2011/11/15 15:36]  Khannea Suntzu: This is circular reasoning. It’s quyite simple. There is NOT any variant of other confiuguration of universe where one would not make this conlusion. I pose that the conlusion therefore is not merited.
[2011/11/15 15:36]  Lem Skall: wait, are we talking about this planet or universe?
[2011/11/15 15:37]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): And the Weak Anthropic Principle says “Nope, not even.”
[2011/11/15 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Well should we expect, ultimately, to have a more precise and satisfiying explanation for why the universe should support life at all?
[2011/11/15 15:37]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Pyotr
[2011/11/15 15:37]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it’s a bad principal
[2011/11/15 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Hey, glad you could make it Pyotr:)
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Ivy Sunkiller: it’s not really circular logic at all
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It’s like asking why the die came up a 3. Sure, you can look at the forces, and the path it took, and all of the minor variables…
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Frederick Hansome: Why does there have to be a reason for our existence here in the first place?
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it’s like saying im at this meeting solely because the sim isn’t down.
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Ivy Sunkiller: more like reverse logic
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Triviumm: there is no response to the question about why the universe can support the life
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): But ultimately, it came up a 3, because that’s what it came up.
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Laborious 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Khannea Suntzu: Precisely
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Peimike Priestman: i think if you drop the word “Weak” there is no room for contention. we live here because it supports us. at different times, other life forms lived and were supported.
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Triviumm: the answer is respect to the fundamentals constants
[2011/11/15 15:38]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): im at this meeting because im able to log on to SL and access this location
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Triviumm: light speed, neutro /electro/proton rate of mase, charge
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Triviumm: all that numbers are NOT deducibles
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Zobeid Zuma: I think ultimately the answer to why life exists has to come from mathematics and thermodynamics.
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Extropia DaSilva: Does it work when combined with chaotic inflation, though? There are many universes, with different laws of physics, and naturally we find ourselves in a life-friendly one.
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Triviumm: they MUST be evaluated in experiments
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Hullo all, sorry, I was trying to catch up *grin*
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Triviumm: and they are AXIOMAS
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Lem Skall: Extie, we don’t know that for sure (that there are multiple universes)
[2011/11/15 15:39]  William Hawksby: i dont know of any other universes
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Zobeid Zuma: Change the laws of physics and you’d get different *forms* of life, but as long as you have a universe that works as a heat engine, something is likely to pop up.
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Ivy Sunkiller: there is no saying that a universe with different constants wouldn’t be able to host life, it might just not be “life as we know it”
[2011/11/15 15:39]  Earthchild: we are here because laws of physics and local history
[2011/11/15 15:40]  ArtCrash Exonar: Reason for existence needs context. And that context is what? Nonexistence? YOu can’t prove or even conceive of non existence. So existence needs no reason.
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Peimike Priestman: asking for a reason why we are supported presupposes our importance. the universe will evolve and in time, may throw us off like a dog scratching fleas.
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Lem Skall: God created this world to accommodate us
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Khannea Suntzu: Then again a range of universes may be very hostile conditions for ‘us’, but may have ‘lacunes’ where vastly alien states may exist.
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Ivy Sunkiller: stripping off all the ones that end up as one huge black hole or w/e
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Ivy Sunkiller: Lem: yes, and he made bannanas fit our hands 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Khannea Suntzu: Khannea Suntzu looks at Lem ..’which may be acutely demonic’…
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Extropia DaSilva: No but our best theories allow for their existence, indeed demand it so we might as well suppose they do exist.
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I would like to know just *HOW* tightly constrained the “tuned constants” really are…
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Zobeid Zuma: Actually, the vast majority of *our* universe has very hostile conditions for us.
[2011/11/15 15:40]  Triviumm: the fundamentals constantes are AXIOMAS in the theory, and they MUST be experimetally evaluated
[2011/11/15 15:41]  Lem Skall: demand it????
[2011/11/15 15:41]  Triviumm: they can NOT be deduced
[2011/11/15 15:41]  Earthchild: devil create coconut then
[2011/11/15 15:41]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): that doesn’t explain the reason why the universe exists and where it came from
[2011/11/15 15:41]  Ivy Sunkiller: haha Earthchild 😀
[2011/11/15 15:41]  Triviumm: the question rest in why are the values of the constante how they are
[2011/11/15 15:41]  Ivy Sunkiller: maybe the coconut was the forbidden fruit!
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Extropia DaSilva: In some cases, very Tara.
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Triviumm: could be diferentes? for instances, light speed = 200.000 km/s
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it doesn’t really explain why everything we percieve to be reality eists
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Ivy Sunkiller: “drink from the nuts Eve and you shall know the truth!”
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Khannea Suntzu: Well for me the pineapple is even worse than the coconut. Damn those things hurt.
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): There was no forbidden fruit – there was just the forbidden dance – the Lambada!
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Triviumm: why the light speed is 300.000 km/s
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Triviumm: ?
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): i think the meter is based on the size of the planet
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): as far as i remember
[2011/11/15 15:42]  ArtCrash Exonar: When philosophy veers away from a starting point of: Given, we exist, there is little to argue….
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): haha, Earthchild
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Frederick Hansome: The universe came from nothing as a consequence of the “Big Bang” Hard concept for us mortals to wrap our minds around
[2011/11/15 15:42]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I’ve heard that, Extropia – but I’ve never actually seen the constraints quantified.
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Extropia DaSilva: Why is dark energy so close to, but not quite, zero?
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Triviumm: the science can NOT answer that, the science just can evalaluated them and put in the teory equations
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It started that way, Rapture – but it’s not any more.
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): It’s now multiples of a specific wavelength of light.
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): regardless of how the universe started, what is the purpose of it
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ?
[2011/11/15 15:43]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): The right conditions and time. It could happen in that situation. So it did and there for we are here now, from conditions and time. 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Does it have to have a purpose?
[2011/11/15 15:43]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): yes
[2011/11/15 15:44]  William Hawksby: Purpose impliesa plan
[2011/11/15 15:44]  ArtCrash Exonar: BTW, just reminding people that the Big Bang is in great danger as a theory these days due to its inability to explain Dark Energy.
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I mean, sure – it could have the same purpose we do – to make more Universe…
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Triviumm: that is the same question, the mathematic, just can talk about time after cero
[2011/11/15 15:44]  ArtCrash Exonar: As a complete theory I should say
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Triviumm: no before
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Khannea Suntzu: Extropia, is ths your metaphysical apophenia gland acting up? Havving a little Trinoc reflux?
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): i would say that if something exists, there is a reason behind it
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Triviumm: so, it is imposible to us, to know “scientifically” what did happen before
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): That regresses to infinity, though, Rapture.
[2011/11/15 15:44]  William Hawksby: maybe a caause – not neessarily a reason
[2011/11/15 15:44]  Triviumm: it is athing of faith,
[2011/11/15 15:45]  Peimike Priestman: we cannot presume to know it’s purpose when we don’t even know how to measure its existence. we sound like the blind men trying to grapple with an elephant.
[2011/11/15 15:45]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): well any start point also regresses infinitely
[2011/11/15 15:45]  Extropia DaSilva: Tara, the number for nuclear fusion efficiency is valued at 0,007. If it were 0.008 or 0.006 our kind of life would be impossible.
[2011/11/15 15:45]  ArtCrash Exonar: As I mentioned earlier, existence doesn’t need a reason. Because it doesn’t have a context.
[2011/11/15 15:45]  Earthchild: our kind of life can be overrated
[2011/11/15 15:45]  Zobeid Zuma: so many imponderables. . .
[2011/11/15 15:45]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it doesnt explain why we are here. why the universe is structured the way it is
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Triviumm: correct extropia , for some misterios reason, the values of constante are exactly which are necesary for life
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Christians point to the Universe, and say something so complicated must have had a creator… They then get huffy if you point out that something as complex as something to create the universe, must then have had a creator.
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: A is A! Existence Exists!
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Triviumm: and that is a mistery, the only answer come from religion
[2011/11/15 15:46]  ArtCrash Exonar: That is the starting point of philosophy Extie. Given: existence
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Khannea Suntzu: Yes and Christians then go and claim this creator makes sense or (snickers) is a nice guy.
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Triviumm: science can NOT answer the “why”
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): What if Nuclear Fusion Efficiency was 0.0071?
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: Neither can religion
[2011/11/15 15:46]  Earthchild: it is rather fantasy than answer
[2011/11/15 15:47]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Science never was intended to answer “why”
[2011/11/15 15:47]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): what are the steps somebody can take to find an answer
[2011/11/15 15:47]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): “Why” is a poor word, anyway.
[2011/11/15 15:47]  Extropia DaSilva: says who, Tara?
[2011/11/15 15:47]  William Hawksby: a “reason” for the universe implies we have a purpose and then we have to decide how to fulfill it whether to just ignore it
[2011/11/15 15:47]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): why is why a poor word?
[2011/11/15 15:47]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Why presumes intention.
[2011/11/15 15:48]  Triviumm: a very interesting and amazing question is about the values of physical constants
[2011/11/15 15:48]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): yes. what is the purpose? what does context have to do with it?
[2011/11/15 15:48]  Earthchild: yes how is better
[2011/11/15 15:48]  Triviumm: and the axiom theory,
[2011/11/15 15:48]  Lem Skall: what if those constants are not constant and we are living NOW (not here) because this is the right time?
[2011/11/15 15:48]  Extropia DaSilva: Why does the sun shine? That has a scientific explanation. So why not ‘why is thc cosmos life-friendly’?
[2011/11/15 15:48]  Khannea Suntzu: Khannea Suntzu ponders this discussion, proceeds to analyze the cosmic background radiation and then, several months later, discovers the *AHA* and then uses the cosmological programming language and starts really tastelessly rearranging the solar system, adding a few dozen easily colonized earh like planets.
[2011/11/15 15:48]  ArtCrash Exonar: Since there isn’t any concept ‘outside’ of existence. You cannot put existence in a any context. Therefore it can have no reasons.
[2011/11/15 15:49]  William Hawksby: you’re asking “how” not “why”
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): We know *how* the sun shines, not really “how”.
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Triviumm: all life is supported over biology, biology is over chemestry, chemestry is over physics, physics, is over mathematic, and finally, mathematic, is over axiomatic principles
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Extropia DaSilva: They may not be constant across the multiverse, Lem.
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): the sun radiates wem energy
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Triviumm: axiomatic principles without previos reasons,
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Lem Skall: multiverse, scmultiverse
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Zobeid Zuma: It took a long time to figure out why the sun shines. Our understanding of why our universe is (relatively) life-friendly might be far away.
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): s/not really “how”/not really “why”/
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Extropia DaSilva: Ah, good point, William:)
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Ivy Sunkiller: I have the answer to all the “why” questions!
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Ivy Sunkiller: WHY NOT
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Triviumm: axiomatic is the starting point of all arguments
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Khannea Suntzu: Khannea Suntzu deletes the US and replaces it with a few dozen copies of Sweden. “there’s why!”
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Triviumm: there is nothing “before” an axioman
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Lem Skall: one, single, varying universe
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Triviumm: axiom
[2011/11/15 15:49]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): artcrash that logic makes no sense. just because you cant put context outside of existence doesn’t mean there cannot be a reason
[2011/11/15 15:50]  ArtCrash Exonar: Rapture, there can’t be ANYTHING outside of existence, so it can’t have a reason outside of itself
[2011/11/15 15:50]  William Hawksby: it makes as much sense to say that the “axioman” was devised by God
[2011/11/15 15:51]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I’m going to head out a bit early…take care, everyone 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:51]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): if nothing exists outside of existence, what does that have to do with ahving a reason?
[2011/11/15 15:51]  Ivy Sunkiller: byes Vio
[2011/11/15 15:51]  ArtCrash Exonar: ha ha Violet has had enough!
[2011/11/15 15:51]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Nah, too many coinciding events 😛
[2011/11/15 15:51]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Bye!
[2011/11/15 15:52]  William Hawksby: what sort of evidence would establish a “reason” for the universe or life?
[2011/11/15 15:52]  ArtCrash Exonar: This really will end up in solipsism, as usual.
[2011/11/15 15:52]  William Hawksby: stone tablets on Venus?
[2011/11/15 15:52]  Extropia DaSilva: Instead of saying God is eternal why not just say the universe is? After all, big bang cosmologies see the universe as being something that was birthed from a pre-exising ‘universe’ (albeit a hyper-dimensional one).
[2011/11/15 15:52]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Sagan’s “Message encoded in Pi”?
[2011/11/15 15:52]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): the universe exists. the question is about where it came from and why
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Ivy Sunkiller: This discussion reminded me of an old joke: There were two cars, one was red, the other one turned left.
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Lem Skall: no why
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): why not why?
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Lem Skall: it just is
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Lem Skall: it doesn’t need a why
[2011/11/15 15:53]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): Well the cosmos is also deadly. Gama rays and such. So you need to right place and time to grow or evolve such, as in the tree of life and it’s genetic branches.
[2011/11/15 15:53]  ArtCrash Exonar: The universe by definiition is everything, so it can’t have come from anything
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Khannea Suntzu: I have faith that the further we go from the human context the more abstract the universe will become.
[2011/11/15 15:53]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath):
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Ivy Sunkiller: hear hear Lem 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Lem Skall: why a why?
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): there’s no such thing as something that just is for no reason. that’s impossible
[2011/11/15 15:53]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: prove it
[2011/11/15 15:54]  Khannea Suntzu: ‘Reason’ is a human attributive label.
[2011/11/15 15:54]  Extropia DaSilva: We should call it Universe. THere is not thing that is not universe and therefore no need to distinguish between ‘the’ universe and anything else.
[2011/11/15 15:54]  Ivy Sunkiller: how is it impossible
[2011/11/15 15:54]  Ivy Sunkiller: I’m curious
[2011/11/15 15:54]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): imposable is ment to be tested 🙂
[2011/11/15 15:54]  Earthchild: there is principle of mediocrity too, we or our universe are nothing specially
[2011/11/15 15:54]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): *possible
[2011/11/15 15:54]  William Hawksby: we may be VERY special
[2011/11/15 15:54]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ok. an effect by definition is an outcome of a cause.
[2011/11/15 15:55]  ArtCrash Exonar: You will have a hard time proving that one Rapture. Because reason breaks down when physics ends.
[2011/11/15 15:55]  William Hawksby: for all we know we are the only life in the universe
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Lem Skall: our universe is only a dimensional cut in space and time from a larger “universe”
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Ivy Sunkiller: we are special, by any statistical measure, but that doesn’t give us (or takes away from us) any purpose
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it is impossible for something to have no cause
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Extropia DaSilva: The principle of medioctrity is hard to justify, given the Fermi Paradox.
[2011/11/15 15:55]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): very possible lem
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Khannea Suntzu: This is likely, but not certain Laborious. Consider that timetravel has not been proven imnpossible. With timetravel we become a cosmological force *EVEN FASTER* than with singuklaritarian transitional technologies.
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Lem Skall: Rapture, nothing needs to have a cause, shit just happens
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): yes but reason/logic works well enough for us to get somewhere with it
[2011/11/15 15:55]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: is it impossible, or are you just not capable of thinking in such terms? Well, I already have an answer to *that* question I think.
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Silvermane Trefusis: Equally, we may just “be.”
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Lem Skall: a rock falls in a pond and creates a ripple, there is no why
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hiya 😀
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: what if the final effect results in the first cause? You know, like in cyclic big bang models?
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Hi, Gwyneth!
[2011/11/15 15:56]  ArtCrash Exonar: Not knowing of other life is not proof of anything other than our lack of knowledge…
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Khannea Suntzu: Smart Extropia.
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: Gwynie!
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Ivy Sunkiller: heyo Gwyn
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Gwyneth Llewelyn waves
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Khannea Suntzu: Or life as a causator engine in the flow of cosmology?
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Zobeid Zuma: Gwyn, heyy.
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Triviumm: all arguments, all reasoning, is ALWAYS, an AXIOMATIC procedure
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Lem Skall: hi Gwyn
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: oops sorry Luisa…!
[2011/11/15 15:56]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ok prove how it’s possible for something to exist without cause
[2011/11/15 15:56]  ArtCrash Exonar: Gwyn will save us from ourselves! haha
[2011/11/15 15:56]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): yes that is another highly likely possibility extropia
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I’ve seen arguments that approaching the end of time is like going north – you keep going in the same direction, but at some point, you’re not going north any more – but there’s no discontinuity in your travel.
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): the idea that existence “just is” seems pretty weak
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Extropia DaSilva: You mean the biocos hypothesis, Khannea?
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Triviumm: you are asking abaout the axios,
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Extropia DaSilva: *biocosm?
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Lem Skall: Rapture, what do you mean by “cause”? That doesn’t mean “why”, “why” is a purpose
[2011/11/15 15:57]  William Hawksby: then the answer to the topic is “I dunno”
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Khannea Suntzu: But this is of course old news, and this was discussed at length in the 90s on the Extropian mailing lists.
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: the idea that a father of a zombie created the universe and put dinosaur bones in the soil is weaker 😉
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Triviumm: axioms, but you can not “DEDUCE” an axiom
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Silvermane Trefusis: “pretty weak” or quite
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): yes the cause of an event
[2011/11/15 15:57]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): something that caused an event
[2011/11/15 15:57]  ArtCrash Exonar: Cause and effect break down in the quantum realm Rapture.
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Lem Skall: and Rapture, I gave you an example: a rock falls in a pond and creates a ripple, the rock may be a “cause” but it’s not a “why”
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Silvermane Trefusis: frightening … given the vulnerable creatures that we are
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Lem Skall: ok, gravity is the cause of the effect
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): the rock has a reason for falling into the pond
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): what made it fall?
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Lem Skall: yes, gravity
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ok where did the rock come from?
[2011/11/15 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: So reasons. should we suppose there is a reason why the universe engineered the ability to understand itself? or a purpose?
[2011/11/15 15:59]  William Hawksby: “who” released the rock
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Lem Skall: from the sky
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Lem Skall: no who
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, I forgot, this is about the Anthropic Principle hehe
[2011/11/15 15:59]  ArtCrash Exonar: We can’t even ask the question Extie.
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): the rock didnt just fall. what caused it to fall?
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Gwyneth Llewelyn is slow in catching up
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Lem Skall: a meteor
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Extropia DaSilva: I just did.
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Lem Skall: and the meteor was created by a star going into supernova
[2011/11/15 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Did anyone ask the usual question at this point… “If nobody were in the Universe, would it still exist?”
[2011/11/15 15:59]  ArtCrash Exonar: A reason cannot exist outside of ‘everything’. Because nothing exists there, as there is no ‘there’ there.
[2011/11/15 16:00]  William Hawksby: “why” presumes a reason ans doesnt seem a proper issue for science
[2011/11/15 16:00]  Lem Skall: and the supernova exploded because it was old, so blame it on time
[2011/11/15 16:00]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): id suppose there is a reason for it. if there wasn’t, then there would be a reason there wasnt which is a contradiction
[2011/11/15 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: Some of our theories allow for the ability, in principle, to create a new universe. So maybe ‘engineered’ universes dominate the multiverse?
[2011/11/15 16:00]  Ivy Sunkiller: William: indeed, it’s like asking “why government is important?”, what if it’s not? 😀
[2011/11/15 16:00]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it’s impossible for there to not be a reason
[2011/11/15 16:00]  Lem Skall: “suppose” doesn’t mean “is”
[2011/11/15 16:01]  ArtCrash Exonar: That is just an assertion on your part Rapture
[2011/11/15 16:01]  Lem Skall: it is very possible
[2011/11/15 16:01]  William Hawksby: so by reason you believe every thing is part of an overall plan?
[2011/11/15 16:01]  William Hawksby: and that presupposes a planner
[2011/11/15 16:01]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: the very fact of the existence of this universe might be a proof of something that has no cause
[2011/11/15 16:01]  Earthchild: what is reason for great plan then
[2011/11/15 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s also an interesting thing, Extropia. if we can “create” universes, then we have admit that a quality of universes is that they can be created — beyond spontaneously appearing like ours did. Is there a contradiction here?
[2011/11/15 16:01]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): if this was a split off bubble universe then what split the wormhole from one to the other and entanglment factors also. Or we could have been a siphon from another universe also. Or the end of one condences into the new universe that we are in. And a few more possibility’s. Humans need to start testing for the paths and see what one is right by our knowledge base
[2011/11/15 16:01]  Extropia DaSilva: The animal that thinks the bush moves for a reason is less likely to be eaten by a predator. That is why our brains evolved to see reason in everything.
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, we’re the ultimate pattern matchers 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ok if the universe has no cause, how can you prove it?
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): So far, Gwyneth…
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Lem Skall: there is indeed cause and effect, but not necessarily purpose
[2011/11/15 16:02]  William Hawksby: If we had perfect knowledge of the universe and everything in it- the “reason” or “plan” might be self-evident
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: you can only really prove things in math
[2011/11/15 16:02]  William Hawksby: we dont
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe ytes, tara, up until now… 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): the idea that reason exist outside of everything has nothing to do with actual physical existence
[2011/11/15 16:02]  ArtCrash Exonar: If we can create ‘universes’ then they are just part of ‘The Universe’. As, by definition Universe is everything.
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Lem Skall: as a matter of fact I would postulate that the world does not have a purpose
[2011/11/15 16:02]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: quite often not even then Ivy
[2011/11/15 16:02]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): if the universe didn’t exist nether would we gwyn
[2011/11/15 16:03]  Ivy Sunkiller: Ivy Sunkiller nods at Pyotr
[2011/11/15 16:03]  ArtCrash Exonar: It is pointless to argue existence.
[2011/11/15 16:03]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Lem: perhaps that’s really the answer! 🙂 There is “just” cause and effect, and *that* is the purpose
[2011/11/15 16:03]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): math is not the only place you can prove things
[2011/11/15 16:03]  Lem Skall: Gwyn, I don’t see what you mean by purpose in that statement
[2011/11/15 16:04]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: oh really? 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Laborious: I don’t necessarily mean “we”. I meant: if there are no sentient beings anywhere in the Universe, does it exist?
[2011/11/15 16:04]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: can you prove that your senses are not lying to you?
[2011/11/15 16:04]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ok if you postulate the world has no purpose, there doesn’t seem to be any reasoning behind and sort of such postulation
[2011/11/15 16:04]  Earthchild: everything possible will happen if there is enough time
[2011/11/15 16:04]  Extropia DaSilva: Universe exists. It is, as Spinoza said, ;cause of itself’ meaning it simply IS and we need not explain its existence to a prior cause. I am of course talking about THE universe, not just ours.
[2011/11/15 16:04]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ivy it’s not difficult to prove that.
[2011/11/15 16:05]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): if we can percive it and share that knowledge and it stands the test of time and many others putting it to scrutiny
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: not? Well please enlighten me please then.
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Lem Skall: Rapture, it is difficult to prove ANYTHING
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The problem of SPinoza is that this is just an assertion; it cannot be proved. We never saw a Universe without observers 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): spinoza said what? based on what is he saying that?
[2011/11/15 16:05]  ArtCrash Exonar: Rapture, there are infinite purposes in the universe.
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: By definition —… that’s the Groucho Marx paradox
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Ivy Sunkiller: I was under the impression that we take senses for granted as axiom to be able to actually talk about *anything*
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Lem Skall: it’s almost IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything without starting from an axiom
[2011/11/15 16:05]  ArtCrash Exonar: I’ve been trying to explain that all evening Extie! haha
[2011/11/15 16:05]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Tara Li grumbles, as he looks back and sees the word was postulate, not prostitute…
[2011/11/15 16:06]  William Hawksby: youre straying into issues of faith
[2011/11/15 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “I want to be a member of a club that doesn’t have me as member”
[2011/11/15 16:06]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): LOL Tara
[2011/11/15 16:06]  Extropia DaSilva: Yes Lem, the most compex book every written set out to prove 1+1-2. ‘Principica Mathematica’ by Betrand Russell.
[2011/11/15 16:06]  Extropia DaSilva: *ever
[2011/11/15 16:06]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): But Godel showed that there are truths in a system that can’t necessarily be proven by the axioms that define the system (more or less, Godel said it more formally).
[2011/11/15 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: 1+1-2=0
[2011/11/15 16:06]  Extropia DaSilva: Pfft you know what I mean, Gwynie
[2011/11/15 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: 😉
[2011/11/15 16:07]  ArtCrash Exonar: Let’s not confuse existence with faith.
[2011/11/15 16:07]  Extropia DaSilva: hey, does zero exist?
[2011/11/15 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, uh, did I get that right? Universes create themselves?
[2011/11/15 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or did I hear that wrongly?
[2011/11/15 16:07]  Ivy Sunkiller: Extie: (boolean)0 will return false in programming!
[2011/11/15 16:07]  Lem Skall: nothing exists
[2011/11/15 16:07]  ArtCrash Exonar: Yes it does extie, because it has a context in which to exist.
[2011/11/15 16:07]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Zero’s my hero
[2011/11/15 16:08]  Ivy Sunkiller: haha Lem 😀
[2011/11/15 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s easy to disprove, Lem 😉
[2011/11/15 16:08]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ok. whatever it is that compels a subject to a certainty belief is subjective. when more than one subject is discussing proof, a set of parameters need to be agreed upon
[2011/11/15 16:08]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): There’s ideas thay do, Gwyneth – the matter that falls into the singularity at the center of a black hole is pinched away and creates a new big bang.
[2011/11/15 16:08]  Extropia DaSilva: In away, yes Gwyn. The inflaton field decays and the energy has to go somewhere, so it is converted into heat and from that matter is created.
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Extropia DaSilva: But the inflaton field itself is infinite.
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Lem Skall: Rapture, I disagree with that
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Frederick Hansome: Anything living has a reason for existence; inaminate objects, the cosmos, cannot have a reason or purpose.
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): provided we are operating from the same parameters, i should have no problem proving my senses are not lying to me
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Ivy Sunkiller: Gwyn: I’d argue that if we can think about “nothing”, can abstract “nothing”, then actually a statment “nothing exists” is true. Just as “sun exists”.
[2011/11/15 16:09]  ArtCrash Exonar: Inflation…. is just a fudge factor for fixing the math of the big band
[2011/11/15 16:09]  ArtCrash Exonar: bang
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Cogito ergo sum, Rapture?
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Extropia DaSilva: Does that not suppose a sharp distinction between animate and inanimate, though?
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): of course anybody can create an argument with anybody by attacking the parameters
[2011/11/15 16:09]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, sure, in the usual sense that we can think about statements, yes, Ivy
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Lem Skall: Rapture, what are the parameters that we operate from?
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): using different parameters gets nobody anywhere
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway… picking back on what Extie just said… we can identify cause and effect that creates new Universes.
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): we operate on faith in logic. logical paramters
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): for most discussions at least
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (we might be wrong, but at least we can postulate those theories)
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Extropia DaSilva: It has amazing retrodictive ability, though, Art. And no other cosmology can explain our universe as well. Until such a cosmology exists I say we should accept inflation.
[2011/11/15 16:10]  Lem Skall: faith in logic? isn’t that an oxymoron?
[2011/11/15 16:10]  ArtCrash Exonar: Philosophers have dealt with the problem of existence forever, and the consensus is: given: existence.
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): most communication is based on the presumption of logic
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So we can say that one universe creates another universe, given the right conditions
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): faith in logic is anything but an oxymoron
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Extropia DaSilva: yes, Gwyn
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it’s how most people live day to day
[2011/11/15 16:11]  William Hawksby: nobody has ever proven or observed any other universe
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): we have faith that logic works
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Extropia DaSilva: In black holes.
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Khannea Suntzu: We are more or less constantly raping language, all of us. I’d say we are utterly and painfully oblivious of the constraints of our own knowing ability and beyond that the pityful labels we attribute to the world are a mockery. We say “:an old star” “explodes” while I can easily say neither use of words have any bearing to anything approximating reality. These are constructive fictions. for remote and abstract ideas.
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’d argue like William, though.
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: e.g. there cannot be any universes where nobody exists to observe them 😉
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Zobeid Zuma: Well, we can assume *some* kind of reality. It may not be what we see around us, though.
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Indeed, Khannea.
[2011/11/15 16:11]  Lem Skall: Rapture, dogs live day to day and they don’t have faith nor logic
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): right khannea it then boils down to semantics
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Zobeid Zuma: I mean after all, we are having this discussion in a virtual world. 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): we live day to day and most people typically have faith in logic
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, Rapture & Khannea. Just words. Ideas, concepts.
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Extropia DaSilva: Well there are tantalising signs in the heat signature of the big bang that our universe migt have interacted with another one. But no definite proof.
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Lem Skall: now you say “most people”
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): yes ost people
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Lem Skall: you have no faith then
[2011/11/15 16:12]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): most
[2011/11/15 16:12]  druth Vlodovic: “observe” is an interesting word, if something has an effect on a rock, isn’t it true that the rock observed it?
[2011/11/15 16:12]  ArtCrash Exonar: Well Khannea, now you are getting into an interesting idea. All ideas break down when viewed with the linguisting lens.
[2011/11/15 16:12]  William Hawksby: logic is a common assumption so we can communicate and make judgments – it has no external “reality”
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): wrong lem
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Unless, Extie, we had someone to ask about it on a previous universe. Right?
[2011/11/15 16:13]  ArtCrash Exonar: linguistic
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Khannea Suntzu: We need to come to grips with the sad truth that our knowing abilkity is rather flimsy. Let’s suspend these big debates a while, OK? Till our brains weigh a few metric ton.
[2011/11/15 16:13]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): Strings wormholes and membrains or foamy bubbles
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Art: No, it goes beyond that — *everything* breaks down to ideas 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): willain you are correct abt logic being a common assumption
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it is common to have faith in our logic
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Zobeid Zuma: I agree with Khannea.
[2011/11/15 16:13]  William Hawksby: whispers: discuss something simple like Why does mickey wear pants and donald doesnt
[2011/11/15 16:13]  William Hawksby: ?
[2011/11/15 16:13]  Zobeid Zuma: Wait. . . Can I do that without the world ending?
[2011/11/15 16:14]  Peimike Priestman: everything is as it is. it is our perception of it that changes with improvements to our knowledge.
[2011/11/15 16:14]  Silvermane Trefusis: Must leave, been interesting.
[2011/11/15 16:14]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): because duck’s pants tend to get wet, mice ain’t
[2011/11/15 16:14]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): science is based on understanding the logic behind how everything works
[2011/11/15 16:14]  William Hawksby: it
[2011/11/15 16:14]  William Hawksby: s all clear to me now : )
[2011/11/15 16:14]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): and then testing it again and again and in multiple ways Rapture
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I actually don’t agree with Khannea on that. Our ability to “know2 is limited if we use limited methods of acquiring knowledge. One limitation, for instance, is assuming that everything we experience has to be described by words, ideas, concepts, abstracts, and if we cannot find a word for it, the experience doesn’t exist.
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): logic is the basis for our sceince and communication. it’s the paramters for how we can have productive discussions
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Peimike: that’s exactly it!
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Because Mickey is anthropomorphic, he walks on two legs just like a mouse doesn’t… Donald is a true duck
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rapture: yes, for the so-called hard sciences.
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): we dont need to find a word. we can create words
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Science, in general, is just a systematic approach to collect knowledge.
[2011/11/15 16:15]  Zobeid Zuma: Wait, have we gone to discussing anthropomorphics now? I could get into that. 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:16]  William Hawksby: As I said earlier- if we had perfect knowledge of the universe the reason for it would be self-evident
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Extropia DaSilva: I never saw a true duck wearing a sailors uniform
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): the true duckiness of donald is something to argue for true donaldists
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): You haven’t read enough of I Can Haz Cheezburger, Extropia.
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: You’re looking in the wrong places Extropia
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: William: now with that I completely agree ㋡
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Zobeid Zuma: And Daffy makes a way more awesome wizard than Donald!
[2011/11/15 16:16]  ArtCrash Exonar: Words need to be agreed upon to work. Look at Urban Dictionary for an example of how word definitions are NOT agreed upon… heh
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Lem Skall: Donald’s wings are also too much like hands
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Art: pfft 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:16]  William Hawksby: woo-hoo – a convert
[2011/11/15 16:16]  Peimike Priestman: before we can ask all the “Why’s”, we have to more fully grasp the “What” of it.
[2011/11/15 16:16]  ArtCrash Exonar: oh noe! The dreaded pfft!
[2011/11/15 16:16]  ArtCrash Exonar: haha
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: You mentioned the Urban Dictionary first!
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: ㋡
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Very dreaded – I’m making sure the wind is blowing away from me!
[2011/11/15 16:17]  ArtCrash Exonar: Collapses in the face of pfft
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe Tara
[2011/11/15 16:17]  ArtCrash Exonar: haha
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Ivy Sunkiller: I just smile at the people asking “why” and move along 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:17]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): sounds like part of this is dancing around the black swan theory/paradigm
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Part of the problem Artcrash is that even when we *think* we agree on word definitions, our own prejudices get in the way and we sometimes look at the same word with different connotations
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Lem Skall: Gwyn is blowing wind?
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Extropia DaSilva: Do we agree with William? Or would we, with perfect knoweldge of the universe, understand that it just is and there is no reason, ultimately, why it just is?
[2011/11/15 16:17]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): “Why ask why? Drink Canada Dry.”
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Ivy Sunkiller: this innate, evolutionary, need to ask “why” is the very reason religions emmerged
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, askingh “why” is what put us into the 21st century, kicking and screaming… and with iPods in our pockets. So I wouldn’t just dismiss the importance of asking “why”.
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Peimike Priestman: Pyotr, that’s why the language of logic is mathematics.
[2011/11/15 16:18]  William Hawksby: if we couldnt discern a reason with perfect knowledge then there isnt one
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Ivy Sunkiller: once you see through it, you can just give the life a purpose of your own
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: True true Peimike
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): if we had perfect knowledge, then we would know whether or not it just is for no reason or if there is a reason and what the reason is
[2011/11/15 16:18]  William Hawksby: the only solution is divine revelation
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: I think that William’s statement is not contradictory like you put it.
[2011/11/15 16:18]  Extropia DaSilva: ‘the’ reason assumes there is just one, Ivy. I think there are many reasons why religion exists.
[2011/11/15 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: With perfect knowledge, we would see the universe as it is, and the reason for being. There is no need for an “or” there.
[2011/11/15 16:19]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): better yet lets start to try to make some micro bubble universes and run test or a battery of test’s extropias
[2011/11/15 16:19]  Khannea Suntzu: Ah come on perfect knowledge. Just having a functionally evolved and debugged brain of 3 kilo will make you emperor of indochina.
[2011/11/15 16:19]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): We have perfect knowledge – we just don’t know it.
[2011/11/15 16:19]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): how do we find out tara?
[2011/11/15 16:19]  Extropia DaSilva: No Gwyn. I mean we might realise there is no cause that caused the universe to exist. It just IS!
[2011/11/15 16:19]  William Hawksby: i think it might be a bit dangerous to go creating universes
[2011/11/15 16:20]  ArtCrash Exonar: The point I’m making with words, is that Linguistic philosophers can break down arguements by defining words: An example “If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound” Linguistics would define tree, fall and sound and then answer the question with a YES. heh
[2011/11/15 16:20]  Lem Skall: is perfect knowledge also complete? can partial knowledge be perfect so what we know is perfect even if we don’t know everything?
[2011/11/15 16:20]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Rapture, I think it’s when we are proven wrong again.. I mean we used to have the perfect knowledge that the Sun moved around the earth
[2011/11/15 16:20]  William Hawksby: being god is a time consuming job
[2011/11/15 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There you go, Tara! you stole my line!
[2011/11/15 16:20]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): if everything is there before you. Then it’s more of how to percive and comunicate that in language to the next or other groups
[2011/11/15 16:20]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Scary, Gwyneth!
[2011/11/15 16:20]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: So perfect knowledge is only perfect in retrospect, then we realize we were wrong
[2011/11/15 16:20]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: grin
[2011/11/15 16:21]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): yes
[2011/11/15 16:21]  Peimike Priestman: not for our own sphere, Gwyn, i agree. But we have such an infinitely small understanding of the universe that we lack the frame of reference within which to ask why yet. Let me restate. we can ask, but we won’t get much of value for an answer. Man has been asking why since he looked up and discovered fire. Look how long it took to get to the iPod you referenced.
[2011/11/15 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: For the sake of the discussion, I equate the words “perfect knowledge” as meaning “experiencing things as they are, not as we perceive them to be”. For me, both are synonymous.
[2011/11/15 16:21]  William Hawksby: it it was proved wrng we didnt have perfect knowledge in the first place
[2011/11/15 16:21]  Extropia DaSilva: Not really, The baby universe pinches off from its ‘mother’ inside a black hole and inflates in a parallel dimension. The ‘mother’ universe is completely unaffected.
[2011/11/15 16:21]  Peimike Priestman: even with the accelerating rate of knowledge aquisition, we’re a long way from coherent answers to the Why of the universe.
[2011/11/15 16:21]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Indeed – causality is broken with respect to the two.
[2011/11/15 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Peimike: 150,000 years! Not a bad accomplishment, given the age of the Universe 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:21]  Lem Skall: I wonder if an alien species that doesn’t ask itself why and only how to make something may be more evolved than us
[2011/11/15 16:21]  William Hawksby: i’ve never bneen to the parallel dimension
[2011/11/15 16:22]  William Hawksby: maybe next holiday
[2011/11/15 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Peimike: poerhaps the reason why we’re not getting those coherent answers is because the methodology used is not the best.
[2011/11/15 16:22]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Could be fun William
[2011/11/15 16:22]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): You know, when talking about alternaties caused by different decisions…
[2011/11/15 16:22]  Peimike Priestman: perhaps the real question isn’t “Why” but “How”
[2011/11/15 16:22]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): People forget that the “decisions” that matter are at the quantum level…
[2011/11/15 16:22]  William Hawksby: the hard part is getting thru those wormholes
[2011/11/15 16:23]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): yes we can have knowledge of truths even without complete perfect knowledge of all there is
[2011/11/15 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: My training includes “thinking out of the box” — when existing methods fail to deal with a problem, change methods. If none work, develop a new one.
[2011/11/15 16:23]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): omnipotence
[2011/11/15 16:23]  Lem Skall: here’s another side of this anthropic principle: are we an intelligent species because we ask “why” or could we be an intelligent species without asking that?
[2011/11/15 16:23]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Every possible quantum transition, at every possible point in planck time, in every possible manner it can occur… For 13.5 billion (approx) years now…
[2011/11/15 16:23]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): That’s one *FUCKLOAD* of universes.
[2011/11/15 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Tara: ah, the quantum level! That fantastic realm where nothing truly exists until someone takes a good look at it 😉
[2011/11/15 16:23]  ArtCrash Exonar: Our current prevailing ‘theory of knowlege’, science, starts with the idea that we never have a final answer, that we don’t ‘know’ for sure. It admits that as its first principle. It is our state of being, not knowing. Coming to terms with this is the first step to learning.
[2011/11/15 16:24]  William Hawksby: depends on the def of intelligent
[2011/11/15 16:24]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): i guess what makes us intelligent is self awareness
[2011/11/15 16:24]  Lem Skall: dogs are self aware too
[2011/11/15 16:24]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): self awareness is not a standalone quality
[2011/11/15 16:24]  Lem Skall: actually dogs ARE intelligent
[2011/11/15 16:24]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): it has ti include free will, ability to create
[2011/11/15 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Lem: like William said., For me, “intelligence” includes the requirement of asking “why”. if not, it’s just sentience.
[2011/11/15 16:24]  Extropia DaSilva: well you need the energy contained in an entire galaxy, focused on a grain of matter the size of a salt grain to start off a baby universe. So it is a pretty impressive feat of engineering, to say the least.
[2011/11/15 16:25]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): self awarness-freewill-creativity are all tied in
[2011/11/15 16:25]  Lem Skall: Gwyn, there are a lot of other questions that we could ask and that would just be a different kind of intelligence
[2011/11/15 16:25]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): entangled quantum particles in mass and send them off one by one into a detector to map out the quadrants and to get the quantum spin of the original partical
[2011/11/15 16:25]  Khannea Suntzu: Listen. If a cosmologist or astrophysicist produces a nice 3D rendering of an exploding star, it’s core cooking away its outer shell in a shockwave of refdused Iron, and I can see the merits of a flashed out accretion disk, THAT makes sense, because “it’ is a damh good story with a beginning, a middle and an end’. Yanno, supenova’s make amazing shakespearan drama. But if some asshat starts with this bllshit that there can’;t be a big bang and there has to be like this god guy before, and he like decided it sort of like because hey, he’s in charge, and oh here’s some gamma ray bursts as well, then theose specific storytellers deserve to be punched in the face.
[2011/11/15 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Art: that idea is actually quite recent — it comes from Popper, probably strongly influenced by Gödel, who pretty much set the limits on what science can discover using its methods.
[2011/11/15 16:25]  William Hawksby: or just take some nothing and sparate it into matter and antimatter- then throw away the antimatter- presto- one universe
[2011/11/15 16:26]  Lem Skall: Khannea, it’s my prophet you’re talking about
[2011/11/15 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Previous to the 20th century, it was believed — an act of faith! — that the then-existing empoirical model of research could discover *everything*. Now we know that’s impossible.
[2011/11/15 16:26]  Khannea Suntzu: *BENG* in the left eye.
[2011/11/15 16:26]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Except, William – you need to hang onto just a *LITTLE* bit of that antimatter.
[2011/11/15 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe Lhannea — I like that
[2011/11/15 16:26]  Khannea Suntzu: Away with tjose DC10s.
[2011/11/15 16:26]  William Hawksby: well- puit it in a drawer
[2011/11/15 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *Khannea even
[2011/11/15 16:27]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Turns out even Charms violate CPT.
[2011/11/15 16:27]  Extropia DaSilva: Gwyn, is it also impossible for there to be an equation you could write ina napkin, that explains why the standars model’s values are what they are?
[2011/11/15 16:27]  Zobeid Zuma: Charms?
[2011/11/15 16:27]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway, the question remains… let’s postulate we can create universes, or that we can at least figure out precisely how to create a few. If nobody is inside those universes to observe it, do they exist or not?
[2011/11/15 16:27]  ArtCrash Exonar: My own personal view is that I don’t know the answers to overarching questions, but I am consoled that no one who has ever lived knows either. So it is OK TO NOT KNOW! ONe can live life not knowing because all lives have been lived not knowing.
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Lucky Charms – they’re magically deliciously quarky.
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Well Gwyneth don’t WE observe them from the outside after we create them
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ok if we postulate that we can create universe, then how do we do it?
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Khannea Suntzu: Gwyneth. Hold your horses. Let’s start with a few planetary surface spanning MMO’s that don’t lag. OK?
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): other than creating a universe in a story
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Art: depends on what overarching questions you have. I’d agree with you partially.
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): 7 Billion People
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “Who created the Universe? We did. How? We started to describe *what* an universe is.”
[2011/11/15 16:28]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): 7 Billion Stories
[2011/11/15 16:28]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): Just don’t tell Schrödinger his cat is dead but from old age and not poision and random gen. Hahaha 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Earthchild: good night ppl, bed time for me
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): 7 Billion Chapters in the NeverEnding Story.
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): so ur saying the universe was created by the self? if that’s the case, how was the self created?
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Extropia DaSilva: Google Universe creation and look for papers by Alan Guth or Andre Linde. They will tell you the theory of how to create a universe in a laboratory.
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Ivy Sunkiller: who created AIDS?
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): some people say there’s no such thing as a separate self
[2011/11/15 16:29]  William Hawksby: whispers: maybe the universe is here for a reason- i tell my kid that some thing is there “to make little boys ask questions
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: What’s that “self” thing you just mentioned, Rapture?
[2011/11/15 16:29]  William Hawksby: “
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): David Brin does a nice explanation in the afterword of Earth.
[2011/11/15 16:29]  William Hawksby: sounds like a good reason
[2011/11/15 16:29]  Lem Skall: not who created AIDS but why?
[2011/11/15 16:30]  ArtCrash Exonar: ha ha, I love the phrase Google Universe Creation. As a noun
[2011/11/15 16:30]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): who already imply’s a persona
[2011/11/15 16:30]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): you stated that the self created the universe?
[2011/11/15 16:30]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): The universe created the self so that the self could create the universe.
[2011/11/15 16:30]  Lem Skall: universe created itself, it’s a clone
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): The Worm Orobourus is a *BEAUTIFUL* image.
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: A lot of people did, by describing it. Cavemen didn’t have the notion 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:31]  ArtCrash Exonar: We of course can’t be finished until we have boiled it all down to solipsism…. haha
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): is the self and the universe the same thing then?
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Extropia DaSilva: Gwy, Johm Wheeler’s It from Bit supposes observing the universe brought the past into existence.
[2011/11/15 16:31]  William Hawksby: maybe it’s the universe’s evolution of self awareness that resulted in life
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Lem Skall: universe has a self, yes
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Frederick Hansome: Good night all. Good discussion…but non-conclusive.
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: heh Art — no, collective hallucination, which is solipsism with many people in it 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Peimike Priestman: goodnight all. thanks for the conversation.
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): before we dive into universe, we should define “existence”
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): ya g2g
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Pyotr Vantongerloo: Did you expect a conclusion Frederick?
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Extropia DaSilva: Always is, Fred;)
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): cu all later
[2011/11/15 16:31]  ArtCrash Exonar: Frederick. non conclusive it will ever be
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): No discussion is ever conclusive, Frederick.
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Khannea Suntzu: Fuck I need a gangbang after this.
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: I love reading It from Bit; now I understand why I like the author so much
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Ivy Sunkiller: Rapture: self and universe might actually be the same thing
[2011/11/15 16:31]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): *LAUGHS*
[2011/11/15 16:31]  ArtCrash Exonar: ha ha Khannea!
[2011/11/15 16:31]  ɖʊֆȶ աǟʟӄɛʀ (laborious.aftermath): LO
[2011/11/15 16:32]  ArtCrash Exonar: LOL
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): A Big gangBang?
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Extropia DaSilva: OK my time is almost up….any last comments on the WAP?
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: yes, both are abstracts 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:32]  ArtCrash Exonar: good one Tara
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Rapture Trendscendence (coolskill): i didnt really notice much conclusive either
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): universe expands … ego not necessarily
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Ivy Sunkiller: if you consider “self” to be consciousness, but I’m going too far into Rhi’s territory
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nah, self is what I think that self is; nothing more and nothing less. It’s just something I made up.
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): I prefer to consider the Universe as a static entity, with time just a matter of perspective from us being inside of it…
[2011/11/15 16:32]  Ivy Sunkiller: and that too Gwyn! 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:33]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): Therefore, no cause, no effect, just IS.
[2011/11/15 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And yes, you’re indeed 🙂
[2011/11/15 16:33]  Extropia DaSilva: OK well my time is up!
[2011/11/15 16:33]  Tara Li (tarali.jie): POEM!
[2011/11/15 16:33]  Ivy Sunkiller: python nerd joke: self is this
[2011/11/15 16:33]  Extropia DaSilva: NEXT WEEK: SETI SUCCESS AND RELIGION..
This entry was posted in after thinkers. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s