Oh dear, there's a term for this kind of thinking. Yeah sure,
if that is the term by which you can recognize these memes, then okay,
I agree you may call me a structuralist. But structure depends on
matter. And a perfect void is devoid of matter and hence structure.
By structure there is separation in time and space, not so in the void.
Structure is part of the universe, yes, but I refuse to shackle my thinking
about the universe in structure. Some parts are structural, especially
thos with complexification potential.
A potential idea is not an idea ?
An idea is an idea. Be it interpreted or worded or depicted or not
is another matter. The archetypes exist no matter what we as human say or not,
because you'll find fibonacci spirals in flowers. We have compact math
descriptions of this progression but does that mean we invented it ? Or rather,
we discovered a description of structure which was there.
>I for one usually have to read your posts a dozen times in order to make
>any sense of them. The others have the critism of my argument from
>design stated much better: "evolution!"
Strange thing : if you do think hat the variation-selection process
is all-permeating then you are invoking a type of God.
If evolution really is everything then this type of process must be selected
out from all other processes. Actually I've thought about it and the only
way it can be so is by some decision or will.
It does sound like goind around in circles, or spirals, but more
on that when I speak about the MetaOrganism.
>Entropy -- the decrease in order in the universe -- is *always*
>true[1]. To acheive our local increases in order, we have to /decrease/
>the order elsewhere. That's what life is all about.
Never said otherwise, but if you really beleive what you say then
the increas in entropy of elsewhere is quantifiable and equatable
to the increase in information structure here. The system has gone
meta once more.
I think this breakthrough will be don using Gell-Mann's Algorithmic
Complexity Description.
Then some will say "no way, the universe is not a computer !".
Others will realise that a better worldview is actually to
view complexifying systems as information processors.
So that you'll again find a system whose globally at equilibrium,
until science shows some parts which don't seem to fit, etc...
Science evolves.
Or better : the more flexible or adaptive theories are selected out
from the less generic ones.
Yash.