DN: '
> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
> a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
> 'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
> liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
> feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
> then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
> continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
> from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
"Why is there anything at all?"
As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)
Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; "I don't exist"
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
* a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
* a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.
I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
the other one provides what otherwise we must call
'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
waves with harmonics.
For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
face would connect with others in a 'quorum' or node. This
provides a potential explanation of quantum entanglement in that
if each of the two faces of a Janus connection were in different
particles, those particles might be fleeing from each other at
the speed of light, or something close to it, yet for that
particular Janus connection each face will still be simply the
back side of its twin such that their temporal separation might
be no more than the Planck time.
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
David Nyman wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:01 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
>> We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
>> (Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
>> reflexivity power of the number's themselves.
>
> I simply meant that in AR numbers 'assert themselves', in that they
> are taken as being (in some sense) primitive rather than being merely
> mental constructs (intuitionism, I think?) Is this not so?
>
>> OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure
>> there remains technical problems ...)
>
> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
> a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
> 'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
> liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
> feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
> then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
> continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
> from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?
>
>> Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
>> interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
>> physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
>> the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
>> the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
>> the right physics, that would be nice, sure.
>
> Agreed. But actually I meant that you would wish it to be an
> empirical matter (rather than Father Jack's 'ecumenical' one!)
>
> It seems to me that overall in this exchange we seem to be more in
> agreement than sometimes formerly. Would you still describe my
> position as positing 'consciousness' as primitive? That's not my own
> intuition. Rather, I'm trying to reverse the finger we point towards
> the 'external' world when we seek to indicate the direction of 'what
> exists'. I'm also stressing the immediacy of the mutual 'grasp' that
> self-motivates the elements of what is real, and which constitutes
> simultaneously their 'awareness' and their 'causal power' - and
> consequently our own. Beyond this, we seem to be in substantial
> agreement that all complexity, including of course reflexive self-
> consciousness', is necessarily a higher-order emergent from such basic
> givens (which seem to me, in some form at least, intuitively
> unavoidable).
>
> David
>
>> Le 11-juin-07, à 13:24, David Nyman wrote in part: (I agree with the
>> non quoted part) ....
>>
>>> Are we any closer to agreement, mutatis terminoligical mutandis? My
>>> scheme does not take 'matter' to be fundamental, but rather an
>>> emergent (with 'mind') from something prior that possesses the
>>> characteristics of self-assertion, self-sensing, and self-action. I
>>> posit these because they are what is (Occamishly) required to save the
>>> appearances.
>> ... And here too.
>>
>>> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
>> We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
>> (Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
>> reflexivity power of the number's themselves.
>>
>>> with
>>> its intrinsic (arithmetical) set of symmetry-breaking axioms,
>> OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure
>> there remains technical problems ...)
>>
>>> then
>>> COMP perhaps can stand for the process that drives this potential
>>> towards emergent layers of self-action and self-sensing.
>> Yes. Perhaps, indeed.
>>
>>> It then
>>> becomes an empirical programme whether AR+COMP possesses the synthetic
>>> power to save all the necessary phenomena.
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> As you would wish it, I
>>> imagine.
>> Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
>> interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
>> physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
>> the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
>> the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
>> the right physics, that would be nice, sure.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> htttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
