[extropy-chat] intelligent design homework

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Exactly: The Simulation Argument. This is our hook for implanting
> > transhumanist philosophy in the population.
> >
> > Nor does there need to be an original IDer. The chain of designers
> > could easily be a loop, given that all universes are
> indistinguishable
> > from a closed time-like curve, there could also be a Meta-loop of
> > universe designers.
> >
> 
> Oy vey.
> 
> Let's consider a causal chain of events where a cause is considered 
> simply a sufficient condition (nevermind necessary conditions for
> now):
> 
> 
> a -> b -> c -> d -> e
> 
> Let's say that each event is time indexed and that causal loops are 
> essentially related to their temporal series:

Error: each universe has its own time axis independent of any other.

> 
> 
> a at t1
> b at t2
> c at t3
> d at t4
> e at t5
> 
> 
> The series is comprehensible in both quasi-causal systems (eg. QM)
> and in traditional models (NM and GR).

But overly simplistic wrt M Theory. Go back to class.

> 
> Now consider the possibility: 
> e -> a
> 
> Leaving us the loop:
> 
> a -> b -> c -> d -> e -> a -> b -> c -> d ...
> 
> 
> This loop has some rather disturbing characteristics:
> 
> 1)  Some events temporally precede themselves violating GR.

No, because each universe is on its own independent time axis. You need
to use M theory.

> 2)  Some events are sufficient for themselves, violating QM (since
> the occurence of a, for instance, would cause the occurence of a,
> making it completely determinate whether or not a would happen).

Try M theory, again.

> 3)  Some -apparently contingent- events would be necessary events
> (e.g. we might think of -a- as possibly not happening, but if this is
> right, then a is a necessary fact about our universe).

The M-branes of each universe create uniquely separate time and space
axes, from the spawning universe, ergo there is no continuity of events
that is mandated, thus looping is possible. This is the nature of
closed timelike curves: if you travel back in time, copulate with your
mother, who then gives birth to you, then you are a necessary fact
about yourself.

> So we put the matter thusly:
> 
> either GR and QM are false and all apparently contingent series of 
> events are actually necessary series of events OR
> 
> There are no temporally causal loops of this kind.
> 
> QED by reductio, there are no temporally causal loops of this kind
> 
> _____
> 
> 
> The other commonly considered possibility is that there are
> infinitely 
> descending causal chains, eg..
> 
> 
> a <- a' <- a'' <- a''' <- a'''' ...
> 
> Where each succeeding a(') precedes the a for which it is a
> temporally sufficient condition (e.g. cause).
> 
> It follows, in such cases, that there are aleph-0 events in that
> given series.  However, the series as a whole (e.g. considered as a
whole) is still a contingent series, itself having a sufficient
condition, let's call it b.
> 
> b, being contingent, has a sufficient condition.  Given the
> no-boundary condition of infinite regress, we get the series
> 
> (a <- a' ...) <- b <- b' ...
> 
> and then also the series:
> 
> ((a <- a'...) <- b <- b'...) <- c' ...
> 
> etc.
> 
> This series, the total series of events, then, has the power of
> Omega, being an absolutely infinite multiplicity.  But by Cantor's
> proof to Dedekind, there are no absolutely infinite multiplicities. 

In which sort of universe? Euclidian or non, and what type of
non-Euclidian?

Again, you are using the wrong maths.

> 
> _______________
> 
> Finally, that there are necessary beings has been demonstrated here 
> already and it is not necessary to repeat it.  There is a common 
> misunderstanding that a necessary being could not be a sufficient 
> condition for a contingent being, but this rests on the mistake of 
> assuming that every aspect of a being must be necessitated by its 
> sufficient condition which isn't the case.  It may be a sufficient 
> condition of some being's existence that it be born, but that may not
> be sufficient to explain why, for instance, it dies, intermediate 
> causes may be involved.  It's granted that every series of events
> must have a causal resolution in a necessary event, but this doesn't
> prevent necessary events from being intertwined temporally with
> contingent ones (for instance, my own will to think about Marx
> being a sufficient and necessary condition of my thinking about
> Marx making it a necessary event).
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Robbie Lindauer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com