[extropy-chat] intelligent design homework

[Robert Lindauer]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- 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.
>  
>

Which universes?  How do we -empirically- have any evidence of their 
existence?  So we can grant that if you're willing to just make stuff up 
out of thin air, the argument might have an error, although, even so, 
each universe -assuming they were causal ones- would still have a causal 
relationship to some uncaused event.

>  
>
>>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.
>  
>

Sure, but adequate for our purpose.  Nondiscursive.

>  
>
>>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.
>  
>

Even so, if causality is retained in a multiverse, there remain the 
causal paradoxes mentioned here.

>  
>
>>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.
>  
>

Irrelevant, perhaps you should try to look at the argument in more 
detail.  "Sufficient conditions" is the key word. 

>  
>
>>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.
>  
>

Gotcha!

Irrelevant to the point at hand.  Look up Cantor's letter to dedekind on 
the impossibility of the absolute infinite.  It's the standard 
interpretation -currently-.

And, actually, my maths is quite good :)

Robbie