[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sat Apr 7 22:31:20 UTC 2007

Rafal writes
> All of these cortices need to use continuous, highly structured data
> streams for their development. The data is generated by sense organs
> and various subcortical structures, and are eventually traceable to
> objects and processes in the external world. There are referents to
> "chickens". There are referents to "numbers". The referents exist
> independently of the cortices that form the concepts related to them.
> In what way are the referents of the concept "chicken" existentially
> different from the referents of the concept "17"?

17 is a concept much more manifest in the universe than are chickens.
(David Deutsch in his "Fabric of Reality" convincingly argues that
real bears (as in ursine) are present to a greater degree in the multiverse
than are Great Bears (as in constellations). The reason is that the former
is an attractor among evolutionary species, whereas the latter arises
only from the strictly random configurations of stars as seen from, say,
planets with observers like, say, us.

This is directly connected to 17 having less KC (Kolmogorov Complexity)
than do chickens.

I consider myself to be a mathematical platonist because all of mathematics
is so manifest in our universe, and consider myself not to be a plain
"Platonist" because chairs, chickens, and the number 13768699846355858630-
01717769722972562433720395628643218679801536774402 are less
manifest (and have lower KC). It's all a matter of degree.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list