[ExI] Dark Energy and Causal Cells

[William Flynn Wallace]

I am against dogma in general. But if dogma fills an emotional need for
security, it should be as rational a dogma as possible.  stuart

I think of dogma as being totally authoritarian - accept what the authority
(person, book, etc.) says and don't question it, don't use reason and logic
because that is a different epistemology - authorities don't want you to
think - emotions like fear, love, deserve a place in decisions about
beliefs, but only a very small one - strong emotions tend to overgeneralize
a lot.

bill w

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:

> Bill W wrote:
>
> >> Just an opportunity to appeal to those who prefer
> >> dogma to discovery. Feel free to share the good news.
>
> > You have just described a big difference between conservatives and
> > liberals.  Conservatives are motivated mainly by fear, and what is the
> > best cure for that?  Certainty.  Which dogma gives. More religious, more
> > irrational.
>
> I am against dogma in general. But if dogma fills an emotional need for
> security, it should be as rational a dogma as possible.
>
> Two satellites designed to map our cosmic microwave background, WMAP and
> Planck have both reported that there is a greater than 50% chance that the
> universe is either flat or open. Both of those geometries are infinite.
>
> Therefore, as bets go, betting that the universe is infinite is at least a
> rational one. Perhaps one could make a case it would also make a more
> rational dogma than most.
>
> >> When experience fails, as it often does when environmental changes are
> >> sudden and unexpected, hopeful foolishness is not a bad fallback option.
> >> From an evolutionary perspective that is.
> > --
> > It makes me wonder how depression [becomes] so entrenched in many people,
> > because what they tend to do in a crisis [is] sit and worry and feel bad.
> > There are actually some psych studies showing that unwarranted optimism
> > can be a very good strategy.  A false confidence is better than no
> > confidence, which breeds inactivity.  Fools, as you say.----
>
> There is really no such thing as unwarranted optimism. There is just our
> attitude toward change. To embrace change as being just as likely to be
> better as worse than the same old shit is not false confidence. It is
> simply confidence.
>
> > causal cells - what? (I googled it and got nothing). If you have followed
> > my posts over the few years I've been around,and sometimes, notably, the
> > absence of them, you realize, with a wry smile, that you have left me
> > entirely in the dust with your explanation of multiple mes.
>
> You can't find causal cells on Google because they are a neologism I
> coined here on the list a few months ago. The concept itself has been
> steadily evolving as I research it. As far as a rigorous mathematical
> definition goes, I have yet to figure that out.
>
> In General Relativity, they seem to be isomorphic with the Schwarzschild
> metric with the allowance that two or more such metrics can be nested
> inside one another yet remain causally independent except with regard to
> the reversal of the direction of the arrow of time, the polarity of the
> event horizon, and the vacuum energy of the interior.
>
> So in short causal cells are black holes and their time reversals, also
> known as white holes, possibly inside other larger black/white holes.
>
> Those black/white holes with the correct internal vacuum energy, should be
> able to support life. So a possible working definition of a causal cell is
> a Schwarzschild metric that contains observers and thus constitute
> somebody's "observable universe".
>
> Although causal cells are by definition certainly *not* the entire
> universe but instead simply a finite and causally self-contained region of
> space-time in a  universe which is itself infinite in space and time.
>
> Thus from the outside, causal cells have only the properties of
> black/white holes. i.e. mass, spin, and charge. But from the inside, they
> are "observable universes" in their own right.
>
> > What I want
> > to know is just who or what is putting together all these infinite
> > possibilities?  These legos.  The proverbial monkeys?    I don't buy the
> > argument that if it can happen, it will.  Does the universe have nothing
> > to do but sit around and make copies of me differing only by one cell?
>
> Nobody is putting together atoms to make you. It is just the truly
> universal laws of physics like gravity, thermodynamics, and entropy
> driving and constraining reality.
>
> You are no more, or less, miraculous than water running down hill. If the
> ingredients are present and the laws of physics are in place, your
> existence is compulsory in a very small percentage of causal cells. Which,
> if the universe is infinite, is an infinite number of them.
>
> You are not what the universe *does*, you are a part of what the universe
> *is*. The universe, like stable polities, are ruled by laws, and not men
> or gods or even machines.
>
> The whole trick of it is to figure out what those laws are.
>
> Stuart LaForge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180107/0fa8c382/attachment.html>