tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post2262638349069584473..comments2024-03-18T10:05:26.015-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: How Everything You Do Might Have Huge Cosmic SignificanceEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-15565756182232948542016-12-20T07:57:00.829-08:002016-12-20T07:57:00.829-08:00Thanks for the continuing comments, folks! (And s...Thanks for the continuing comments, folks! (And sorry for my slow replies.)<br /><br />Adam: I agree that the interaction of galaxies is probably less complex (though measuring complexity is a trick). But unless interactions *have* to get less complex as one scales up, giving infinite scaling up there must be some magnitude at which complexity manifests again. It might be so huge that the whole visible universe is a Planck length of a Planck length compared to it.<br /><br />Howie: I like Vonnegut. I haven't read that one yet, though!<br /><br />Marcellus: Yes, maybe the magnitude changes nothing. We can run another version with a far distant "Emily" that is just our size.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-84871146334649999212016-12-19T04:20:26.880-08:002016-12-19T04:20:26.880-08:00This is, like, what I thought when I was 14? Lol. ...This is, like, what I thought when I was 14? Lol. But as has been said before: The effect isn't cosmological, as the cosmos is all encapsulating, thus the probability of a mind, existing on the complex structures of our observed 'simpler' structures, stacked like our cells are stacks of proteins, molecules and atoms, the cells itself make up body, brain and their processes. A change in the digestive track, changes the way the mind works.....In all, there are many 'long shots' that may or may not have logical philosophical implications of possibilities, but as the magnitude doesn't changes anything, whether you 'know' of it or not, it feels (that is not the cognitive part but I seem to be able to rationalize it...perhaps emily, somewhere deep down in the universes that make up me, has caused this) like waste of energy.Marcellushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14599420706827140168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-77543981370713409782016-12-08T19:29:39.563-08:002016-12-08T19:29:39.563-08:00Your scenario sounds just like a Vonnegut novel. L...Your scenario sounds just like a Vonnegut novel. Like KIlgore Trouthowie bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-58755807772222576122016-12-08T18:35:17.431-08:002016-12-08T18:35:17.431-08:00I wonder if this would violate Whitehead's ont...I wonder if this would violate Whitehead's ontological principle / relativity principle. Interesting because otherwise the cosmology has some interesting parallels.<br /><br />I have an objection to what I take to be your principle that complexity scales up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zD3NxSsD8<br /><br />I simply don't see complexity like this happening on a galaxy and/or universal scale (or for that matter on the sub-atomic scale). The interaction of galaxies do in fact seem less complex to me than the kind of complexity we see in that video. It is of course entirely possible that this results from my ignorance of that complexity.Adamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-23802579622946734162016-12-04T08:36:14.974-08:002016-12-04T08:36:14.974-08:00Thanks for those reflections and encouragements, J...Thanks for those reflections and encouragements, JR!<br /><br />Unknown: Yes, all of that and more -- although if there's a high likelihood of strict "canceling" without *any* remainder, then that's contrary to the postulated butterflying.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-89288801107911934712016-12-03T21:10:09.937-08:002016-12-03T21:10:09.937-08:00So will our emotions and intentions scale up infin...So will our emotions and intentions scale up infinitely, like for like? Like, there isn't at least equal chance that my surge in positivity won't chaos-wave into a surge of negativity for Emily? Could I play the demon and gaslight super-giant Ingrid Bergman? Are the me-waves likely to get cancelled out in a wash of you-waves? Will the electoral college favor rural over city intentionalities and saddle us with a Boltzmann Trump? Have you read The Confidence Man: His Masquerade?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15089994292237850628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-81567881053315247832016-11-30T20:00:33.600-08:002016-11-30T20:00:33.600-08:00ES,
Stumbled across your blog while google searchi...ES,<br />Stumbled across your blog while google searching the likeness of a quote that came into my consciousness: "Gray is the moral scale between the black and the white." In other words, alluding to the presence of ambiguous moralities within or rather in the space between more rigidly defined moral constructs, i.e. good and bad/evil, and allowing for intermediate grounds between those polar moral constructs and neutrality -- suggesting that morality exists along the shades of a gradient rather than any finite set of terms, barring the polar extremes. At this same time another quote came into my consciousness, "Love is the color between the black and the white." and my immediate synopsis was that the quote first mentioned alluded to a more objective, logical line of thought and the latter to a more subjective, emotional line of thinking. The latter being expanded in a similar manner as before: love, or emotions, bring color to the otherwise static, rigidly defined monochrome -- or in other perhaps more concise words, emotions paint the intermediate spaces between moral constructs.<br /><br />I digress, what brought me to comment is that on the same grounds as your hypothesis, a butterfly flaps its wings in continuation of its life and Emily, in turn, feels that impact in some cosmic way and is inspired to continue on in her life in pursuit of that which she deems worthy of pursuit -- I feel as though within my own life the cosmos reverberates and such quotes as the ones that struck me come into consciousness, of no volition of my own other than, say, a willingness to learn. Nothing juxtaposed to those thoughts, in my subjective opinion, would hint that those particular quotes would follow in succession, rather it was more of a 'eureka' sensation as it crossed my mind. A model of cosmic intervention could map the progression of these thoughts traveling into my being, or perhaps a more conservative thinker might say that it was more along the lines of environmental factors. I am of no availability to say, I can only question and postulate, as you will probably agree. Interesting nonetheless, and I felt compelled to share after reading such an interesting piece, thank you for sharing.<br /><br />I also find your choice of 'labels' amusing. It is unfortunate that ideas outside of the stereotypical 'norm' are viewed with such stigma so as to leave even us, members of the philosophical community, to brand them as such. Although perhaps the label 'humor' is more telling in relation to the other terms chosen and I am reading too deeply here. :)<br /><br />I would greatly enjoy more educated, or bar that, just in general more introspective/extrospective exploration of topics such as this one. Crazy is only crazy until it spreads and becomes a societal 'norm' after all.<br />-JRJRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-25957981774082426782016-11-30T09:49:26.182-08:002016-11-30T09:49:26.182-08:00Thanks, George! It's hard to know what creden...Thanks, George! It's hard to know what credence to give to an infinite universe. Partly, it depends on the default, I suppose. Is it theoretically more attractive to posit no end unless we find positive evidence for an end?<br /><br />On all being part of God's mind -- I'll check out your link. I do think that is an interesting cosmological perspective that deserves to be taken seriously and which has rarely been explored in 21st century Anglophone philosophy. I posted on it a while ago at http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-to-be-part-of-gods-mind.htmlEric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-38489862139348516752016-11-30T09:16:02.184-08:002016-11-30T09:16:02.184-08:00Wow. The swirls in my morning latte look differen...Wow. The swirls in my morning latte look different after reading this post. <br /><br />Infinitude is indeed a strange and wonderful thing. I recently posted a riff on the typing monkey theorem (give 100 monkeys - or one - enough time and they will produce all the works of Shakespeare) as a way of addressing the cherry-picking problem with big data (selectively interrogate the data enough times and you can find "evidence" supporting just about any conclusion). This is one of the tactics climate change skeptics, for example, use effectively to undermine a scientific consensus. (see: http://swedenborgcenterconcord.org/why-big-data-cant-be-trusted-part-one-and-what-to-do-about-it/ )<br /><br />You point out the same problem with any cosmological speculations that are based on a conception of an infinite universe. Any and all speculations may be true - and there's no way to tell. This suggests that there may be a problem with your first premise - that the universe is infinite. The evidence of our senses and instruments suggests (but does not prove) that the physical universe is finite. Neither space nor time can be subdivided into continua due to quantum features of the universe. There's really no evidence that there are reaches of the universe beyond or outside our Big Bang cosmos - just lots of speculation. Moreover, even if we do find evidence of "something" out there, such evidence is by definition finite, as are we! More finite evidence cannot prove the universe is infinite.<br /><br />Finally, I might suggest that perhaps the infinite recursive spectacle that you describe - one's actions/choices reverberating through cosmos and altering the fate of the "big intelligences" out there, can be reduced to a much simpler model of a single infinite big intelligence in which each action/choice of our small, finite intelligences reverberates. This is actually a much more commonplace speculation - infinite God creating finite worlds and intelligences with whom to share His eternity. I did some speculation along these lines in the 2015 FQXi Essay Contest (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2381 ).<br /><br />Thanks for the fantastic journey!<br /> George Gantzhttp://www.swedenborgcenterconcord.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-7616453371376844312016-11-29T17:17:00.908-08:002016-11-29T17:17:00.908-08:00'Continuant' progressive assumptions help ...'Continuant' progressive assumptions help an observant Emily, but only for her past and future existences... <br />Could she also have an existence, 'in a special position in the universe', for observation of the present... Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.com