A couple of Tegmark's other papers in a similar vein that I have links to:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510188v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9704/9704009v2.pdf

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Steve wrote:
And here is me trying to approach this issue through a, dare I say it, spiritual POV. I prefer to say a subjective POV as the exploration of subjectivity is the essence of a spiritual practice.

It takes a brave man to do that here.

All of this that I am working out here and talking about has helped me to marry my love of the certainty of science with my spiritual POV and my spiritual practice. It is so good to have a whole that knits together.

The only parts you have posted that make me cringe are the parts about 'for the good of man and society' and other teleological hints. I strongly believe that those things will be the natural side-effect of a spiritual life but making them the purpose of one is just another one-up substitution of ego. My ego for the ego of man.

It really doesn't matter to me if we all go extinct. I look forward to it.

All my thinking on this stuff began with me alone with nature and pondering the connections. I am human. If I am to be of service it only makes sense I use my humanity. However I do not see humanity as being the only voice and I certainly do not think we are the last word. Whatever replaces us needs to have the bar set as high as humanly possible. Thus we must strive to our last breathe.

Steve wrote:Whatever replaces us needs to have the bar set as high as humanly possible.

Teleolugly. Make it so, Steve. Make me care.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Steve wrote:Whatever replaces us needs to have the bar set as high as humanly possible.

Teleolugly. Make it so, Steve. Make me care.

Doesn't work like that. All I have to do is care. Your caring is your job. If I do it for you I will deny your POV. If I deny that I care I deny my own. It is a razors edge.

And if you claim you don't care that creates your own subjective reality.

In the end it reduces to will power - but that struggle is within you for your own reality.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnOFNxaCehA[/youtube]

It seems like I have a bad case of the 'dumbs'. I have to ask a simple question. I guess we have to put aside this freaky business of the time dimension for a moment.

Why are there clusters of matter?

I have to also put aside the intrinsic silliness of why questions too. Maybe there just ARE clusters of matter. But if that is the case then that IS something in itself. Isn't it? I just can't get over the particulars. Senility? Is this what it's like?

You mean why are there clusters of matter rather than a uniform distribution of "stuff" throughout the universe?

Chrisw wrote:You mean why are there clusters of matter rather than a uniform distribution of "stuff" throughout the universe?

yup.

Well I think the theory is that the very early universe had an incredibly uniform distribution of matter. But over time matter clumps together due to gravitational attraction.

Chrisw wrote:Well I think the theory is that the very early universe had an incredibly uniform distribution of matter. But over time matter clumps together due to gravitational attraction.

Sure. If we look at 4D we have some spaghetti. The curve of the spaghetti tells us about the gravity and other physical laws. But these things are uniform. The galactic clusters and individual stars aren't. If we just had uniform physical laws and a uniform starting point we would have uniform pudding all throughout.

If you look at the laws as shaping the spaghetti we have one view. Another is that the symmetrical shape of the spaghetti IS the law. But what laws create the clustering? The clusters are not uniform.

Penrose talks about this thing where the black holes studding the universe are information that is transferred from one bang to the next. Is this what he is talking about?

Then we have colliding branes. But if you factor out all of the uniform symmetric laws that we know about and will discover it seems to me that something else is still left. Some pattern. Maybe some uber-dimensional space has the laws that create this randomness?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Chrisw wrote:Well I think the theory is that the very early universe had an incredibly uniform distribution of matter. But over time matter clumps together due to gravitational attraction.

Sure. If we look at 4D we have some spaghetti. The curve of the spaghetti tells us about the gravity and other physical laws. But these things are uniform. The galactic clusters and individual stars aren't. If we just had uniform physical laws and a uniform starting point we would have uniform pudding all throughout.

But quantum randomness puts a limit to how precise this uniformity can be. Isn't this what the KOBE microwave telescope was measuring - the (very tiny) randomness that existed in thebackground radiation that mirrors the distribution of matter in the early universe?

The extreme uniformity of the early universe represents a state of extremely low entropy. The creation of small islands of local complexity that have arisen since are driven by the gradual winding down of this low entropy situation into large scale disorder (high entropy).

In one of his books Penrose gives an example of how it works when he talks about the Sun being a source of low entropy (narrowband) radiation which the Earth re-radiates as high entropy (wideband) radiation. In the process it creates what he calls 'negentropy' (complexity, structure) on Earth.

Chrisw wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Chrisw wrote:Well I think the theory is that the very early universe had an incredibly uniform distribution of matter. But over time matter clumps together due to gravitational attraction.

Sure. If we look at 4D we have some spaghetti. The curve of the spaghetti tells us about the gravity and other physical laws. But these things are uniform. The galactic clusters and individual stars aren't. If we just had uniform physical laws and a uniform starting point we would have uniform pudding all throughout.

But quantum randomness puts a limit to how precise this uniformity can be. Isn't this what the KOBE microwave telescope was measuring - the (very tiny) randomness that existed in thebackground radiation that mirrors the distribution of matter in the early universe?

The extreme uniformity of the early universe represents a state of extremely low entropy. The creation of small islands of local complexity that have arisen since are driven by the gradual winding down of this low entropy situation into large scale disorder (high entropy).

In one of his books Penrose gives an example of how it works when he talks about the Sun being a source of low entropy (narrowband) radiation which the Earth re-radiates as high entropy (wideband) radiation. In the process it creates what he calls 'negentropy' (complexity, structure) on Earth.

Just started reading The Road to Reality. My best friend died year before last and his family just gave me a pre-garage sale crack at his library. I got a 173 books from Ryle to Penrose. A couple of Searle's books. He had all kinds of neuroscience, lingusitics, and philosophy books. I will be immersed for a while.

The local complexity is the most fascinating thing to me right now. I chalk it up to senescence.

All that aside. We are all geniuses when it comes to the roman letter H. You don't even have to know how to read or write you could still find the letter H in any number of fonts or bad handwriting or even in the clouds or rock formations.

IQ type genius is being able to find patterns like this in higher order concepts. But it's all the same kind of mechanism in the brain. We statistically discern some essential pattern in very fuzzy things.

TNERE

When do H's become N's? I can look at the woods and experience H's everywhere. Or N's. It depends.

I can run into an H form and interpret it as one as an accident of my environment.
I can go out looking for H's and find them everywhere.
I can close my eyes and make H's.
I can find a bastardized H or N in the context where an H should be and just let it slide.

I can fuck with my imagined H and stretch the limits of the definition of one.

It seems that all I need is three lines and a judgment about H-ness.

We talk about experiencing red and blue a lot but we seldom talk about experiencing H-ness. Red seems to be just laying around but H-ness is a little cooler. I can all most feel the delay between a visual scene like a bunch of branches and the H experience.

Any thoughts on this from anyone? How the hell do we experience H? Does it exist in the universe?