Hi Stephen P. King
With his relativity principle, Einstein showed us that
there is no such thing as space, because all distances
are relational, relative, not absolute.
The Michelsonęorley experiment also proved that
there is no ether, there is absolutely nothing
there in what we call space. Photons simply
jump across space, their so-called waves are
simply mathematical constructions.
Leibniz similarly said, in his own way, that
neither space nor time are substances.
They do not exist. They do exist, however,
when they join to become (extended) substances
appearing as spacetime.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/30/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-29, 19:54:56
Subject: Re: Epiphenomenalism
On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Sep 2012, at 12:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
HEY!
It's nice to see other people noticing the same thing that I have been
complaining about. Thank you, Brent!
On 9/29/2012 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I *can* know the exact position of an electron in my brain, even if this will
make me totally ignorant on its impulsions. I can know its exact impulsion too,
even if this will make me totally ignorant of its position.
But that doesn't imply that the electron does not have a definite position and
momentum; only that you cannot prepare an ensemble in which both values are
sharp.
OK. This Fourier relation between complementary observable is quite mysterious
in the comp theory.
How about that! Bruno, you might wish to read up a little on Pontryagin
duality, of which the Fourier relation is an example. It is a relation between
spaces. How do you get spaces in your non-theory, Bruno?
?
The result is that we have to explain geometry, analysis and physics from
numbers. It is constructive as it shows the unique method which keeps distinct
and relate the different views, and the quanta/qualia differences. But the
result is a problem, indeed: a problem in intensional arithmetic.
Hi Bruno,
What ever means they are constructed, it is still a space that is the end
result. A space is simply "a space is a set with some added structure."
In both case, the electron participate two different coherent computation
leading to my computational state.
Of course this is just "in principle", as in continuous classical QM, we need
to use distributions, and reasonable Fourier transforms.
But at the fundamental level of the UD 'the electron' has some definite
representation in each of infinitely many computations. The uncertainty comes
from the many different computations. Right?
Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us "here and now". The QM
indeterminacy is made into a particular first person comp indeterminacy.
Where is the "here and now" if not a localization in a physical world.
Perhaps, but you need to define what you mean by physical world without
assuming a *primitive* physical world.
I am OK with the idea that a physical world is that which can be described
by a Boolean Algebra in a "sharable way". The trick is the "sharing". It order
to share something there must be multiple entities that can each participate in
some way and that those entities are in some way distinguishable from each
other.
This is defined as "centering" by Quine's Propositional Objects as discussed in
Chalmers book, pg. 60-61...
The state is well defined, as your state belongs to a computation. It is not
well defined below your substitution level, but this is only due to your
ignorance on which computations you belong.
Right. What I would generally refer to as 'my state' is a classical state
(since I don't experience Everett's many worlds).
But I still don't understand, "Consciousness will make your brain, at the level
below the substitution level, having some well defined state, with an electron,
for example, described with some precise position. Without consciousness there
is no "material" brain at all. "
How does consciousness "make a brain" or "make matter"? I thought your theory
was that both at made by computations. My intuition is that, within your
theory of comp, consciousness implies consciousness of matter and matter is a
construct of consciousness;
That's what I was saying.
Really!?
?
I believe that it was Brent that wrote: "My intuition is that, within your
theory of comp, consciousness implies consciousness of matter and matter is a
construct of consciousness; " and you wrote that you agreed.
so you can't have one without the other.
Exactly. Not sure if we disagree on something here.
What exactly are you agreeing about, Bruno? No consciousness without
matter? Ah, you think that numbers have intrinsic properties... OK.
Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible realities.
It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can come
up with several other counter-examples in terms of finite field, but that is
overly belaboring a point.
This is needed to define in an intrinsic way the non intrinsic, intensional
properties of the relative number (machines). Being universal, or simply being
a code, or an address is not intrinsic, but can be once we choose an initial
Turing universal base.
How do you distinguish one version of the code X from another Y such that X
interviews Y has a meaning?
Bruno
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
