We expect not just other humans to recognize them, but
> also extra-terrestrials competent at science and engineering -
> because of the way the universe works.
...again, not because the of the "way the universe works" but because of the way the universe works according to the manifest experience of a particular manifest consciousness. The universe itself doesn't DO anything. Nothing in the universe itself relates necessarily to anything else in the universe. Only in our particular manifestation of the undivided potential of the universal flux. ...everything is built on chaos - the sum of all possible orders - and just because we exist within a particular internally consistent pattern set is no reason to make the assumption that it is a necessary pattern set. It may well be necessary for the existence of anything we can either recognize or conceptualize, but it's not necessary for existence per se.
[plaque description snipped]
> Now you can scream about context.
...yer darn tootin'
This plaque was designed to create
> a context by using a combination of physical constants that an
> engineering space going race would be familiar with and ratios to
> conceptualize itself. Are you saying it doesn't work?
...it works perfectly fine. Hurrah for the encoding mechanisms of modern science. Three cheers, lets have some cake. But since you're the set theory mojo you should recognize that the [set of constants necessary and significant to a material species in this aspect of the cosmos] does not necessarily subsume the [set of constants necessary and significant for this particular manifestation of the universal flux] or have anything to do with the [set of constants (if any) regulating the absolute functional limits of the unvierse].
Or is your
> argument specifically against my examples?
...my argument is against any statement that puts itself forward in
the general form
X is necessary
and leaves out an explanation of precisely what X is necessary FOR.
[discussion or fatios snipped]
> I am suggesting once again that the frame of reference for these
> things is the universe.
...and I am objecting, once again, that the frame of reference is a particular manifestation of possibility within the universe. ...we may be using the term "universe" differently - you seem to be taking the position that the universe has definite qualities and particular attributes. I think this is basic to our disagreement - I don't think there's anything definite or particular about the universe qua universe.
The model is not more significant than the
> real thing.
...but the "real thing" to which you refer is a particular (very large and complex) model.
[snip snip snip]