Patrick, Platt and the rest.
Platt wrote:
> Count me in with those who agree information is a value pattern.
Me too. Or to be more specific, information is *intellectual* value patterns.
> Completely agree with one minor exception. Instead of our will being at
> the head of train our aesthetic sense is at the front, constantly
> sweeping and appraising the raw data of experience.
>
> But I could be wrong. It is an interesting question. I hope others will
> chime in with their opinions.
I've been following this thread waiting for a good place to chime in and this
seems to be as good a place as any.
I'm afraid I won't argue about the contents of the train of Quality. Instead,
I triggered on Patrick's use of the word 'noncomputable'. The article in
Ross's initial post described Zeilinger's hypothesis to associate bits with
the building blocks of quantum mechanics. Normally, information as used in
information theory is very computable, so if Zeilinger is correct and the
quantum realm is computable, it would effectively rid us of our "free will",
right?
Ok, I *will* argue a bit about the train of Quality. It doesn't really matter
whether our will or aestethic sense is at the helm of the train. Zeilinger's
hypothesis is not concerned with how the MoQ wants to divide reality into
DQ and SQ, it simply wants to describe reality as accurate as possible.
Ok, but if we *do* want to combine Zeilinger's idea and the MoQ? We are after
all discussing the MoQ. What do we get? A puzzle, that's what. Information is
intellectual patterns of value right? According to the MoQ, the intellectual
level is supposed to be at the top of the static ladder, not at the rock
bottom where Zeilinger wants to put it. Or rather at level 0 (not counting
a possible quantum level which would put it at level -1).
Some of you mentioned the possibility to tweak the MoQ to adapt it to
Zeilinger's hypothesis, but I wouldn't recognize the MoQ after such an
operation.
But actually, there is another way to combine the two. I mention this in my
essay in the forum in the "Merry-go-round" chapter.
http://www.moq.org/forum/magnus.html. If you stack two level ladders on top
of eachother, the top ladder would have an intellectual level right beneath
its inorganic level. It wouldn't be the intellectual level of the same
universe though. (Now what is that guy rambling about???)
Ok, let's have someone build a machine emulating Zeilinger's hypothesis.
When such a machine is powered on, it would start a brand new universe
inside. If the start conditions were right, a Big Bang could be emulated.
The universe outside the machine, including the machine itself, would be
the universe of the lower level ladder, and the universe inside the machine
would be the top level ladder. But of course, this ladder stacking just
begs the question: Where do we stop? Is our universe also just a machine
emulating Zeilinger's hypothesis? In which case, what about the universe
of *that* machine?
I'd say no. Which, I'm afraid, also means a no to Zeilinger's hypothesis.
I think the MoQ and Zeilinger's hypothesis are quite incompatible, and I
put my vote on the MoQ.
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST