Ourcellves? (Identity)

by romansh , Thursday, April 10, 2014, 14:55 (3667 days ago) @ GateKeeper
edited by unknown, Thursday, April 10, 2014, 15:05

I don't know if i understand you rom. 
> 
> I took "physical world" as what we "know now". 
I take physical as whether it can respond to cause and effect.- 
> It is great to extrapolate and interpolate, as long we don't go to many steps. Kind of like Charles laws in context of pv=nrt in conjunction with van der waals. Although we know much less than the difference between ideal and real gas laws.
That reality is more complex than any Law is fairly understandable.-People I think get confused by deterministic world views. While effects are to some degree predictable from causes ... the causes are complex (universal if you like) and the operators (Laws) are incomplete.-> 
> I agree with you. If you look at "lumping", then the reasonable conclusion that the universe is alive is sound. If we look at splitting, then the conclusion that the universe is alive is valid too. 
>
For me if the universe is alive/conscious, then the distinction between animate and inanimate becomes moot. 
> We have two data sets converging on a conclusion. "emergence". Looping.-If your definition for emergence is processes with feedback .. fair enough.-But emergence simply reduces to something I can't predict easily.