On 22/06/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MP: Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are, i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically related, do they have babies?
DN: .....and if they have babies, where the ortho-dimensional-hell are we going to find baby-sitters? Seriously though folks, what I enjoy about such speculations, pace more rigorous mathematico-physical investigation (of which I am incapable), is to try to understand how they converge on the implicit semantics we use to intuit meaning from the worlds we inhabit. It's a bit like comparative philology, in the sense of reconciling narratives coded in different symbols, to explicate a common set of intuitions. But on the other hand this may just be what Russell, more acerbically, calls gibberish (and he may be right!) David > > MN: 'If an > >> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide > >> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. > > > > Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. > > 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to > > imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' > > - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of > > orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality > > MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' <and that's > a lovely way to put put it now isn't it> is exactly what I was > thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be > the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the > universe writ small. > > one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where > _our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty > space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane > predominates. > > Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this > interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume > we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would > compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are, > i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact > in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically > related, do they have babies? > > > Regards > > Mark Peaty CDES > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ > > David Nyman wrote: > > On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that > >> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but > >> relationships entail existence and difference. > > > > I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish > > whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of > > a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I > > suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno > > usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. > > > >> 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. > > > > Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno > > has had something to say about this in the past. > > > >> If an > >> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide > >> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. > > > > Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. > > 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to > > imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' > > - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of > > orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality > > > > David > > > > > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---