On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: >> >> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any >> other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? >> >> >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful >> laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. >> >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict such >> deterministic law. >> > > That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts a > single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding anything, I > am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into sense: "Laws", > "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions", "Probability"...all of that invisible > voodoo is gone. It's all primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own > alienation and re-constellation. > > > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me. >
Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-gap, etc. I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be anything more or less than sense. > > > > >> >> >> I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help >> of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was >> different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the >> explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena >> partially absorbed/understood as parts of a "PHYSICAL World". >> It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind >> (consciousness???) >> >> >> OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery of the >> universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable sense) makes >> possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and capable of >> self-transformation, of those machines. >> > > Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of > self-transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex, but > they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True beauty, whether > in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece, introduces an experience > which is literally unimaginable before it appears. It is not > self-transformation, but revelation of simple, iconic presentations which > relate to nothing but their own brand of pleasure, and to the history of > all beauty and pleasure. It has not exterior truth which it mediates for, > as we have proved with commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product > that has nothing to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for > whatever we attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation. > > > My feeling is that you have a limited view on mathematics. > True, but that may be what is required. If you want to understand what it all is, and don't have the math to fall back on, then you have to think more deeply about the question. We need a limited view of mathematics. Computers are much better at it. You miss that quality and first person notion can be handled, accepting > some definition. > No, I think that you miss that they cannot be handled by any definition, because all definitions are already first person qualities. They are perspectives on perspectives - sense making of sense making. > You seem to believe that there can be no third person account of an > axiomatic of the first person notion. > Right. Why would third person need an account of anything when first person is already the only accountant? > That's a category error. Math must be 3p, but can talk about 1p, and even > seems to imply it, as the arithmetical 1p hypostases should illustrate. > I think that's an illusion. Math's version of 1p is an empty light socket with a bulb drawn around it. All references to 1p come from our minds - our generosity in sharing our awareness in whatever we look at that seems to have a face, or does something that seems to require knowing. In the proper light, all of these empty promises and paste jewels will be exposed as the pathetic fallacy...a trompe 'loeil that is as spectacular as any could ever be. Craig > Bruno > > > > > Craig > > >> >> You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would >> impose an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress. >> >> Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and this is >> mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art to accept it >> and move on. >> That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to see >> how wrong they were. >> >> François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was sincerely >> disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model showing the >> Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are shown true. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou >> <stat...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Allegedly Stathis wrote: >>>> *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be >>>> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is >>>> a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in >>>> the >>>> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural >>>> processes.* >>>> >>>> I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently >>>> known/knowable. >>>> Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The >>>> demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and >>>> whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on >>>> indeed. Explained by physics? >>>> I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we >>>> perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from >>>> time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. >>>> Agnostically yours >>>> John Mikes >>>> >>> >>> It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, >>> but with any physics. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
