On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> Hi LizR, > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King >> <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: >> >>> No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to "interpret" >>> the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are >>> immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to >>> build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean >>> vision of the universe. >>> >> >> I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your critique, >> then I assume your critique is in trouble. >> > > SR, GR and QM do not require, and some say even prohibit, a "view from > nowhere <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere>". Thus my claim > follows. SR, GR and QM all require some selection of a frame or basis pr > "point of view" that induces a bias. Laplace and the Newtonians and, I > argue, the Platonist assume that the ontological ground can be defined to > have some particular set of properties (and not any other) without any > explanation of how it is necessarily so; like Bruno with his AR. > I'm not sure that SR, GR and QM require "selection of a frame" except insofar as one wishes to perform a particular calculation. SR for example describes what particular observers will measure, but doesn't require that their frame of reference is in any way special. Similarly, QM (with Everett) doesn't require that any basis is special, as far as I know, just that certain observers will select one by making a particular measurement. I think the use of the word "bias" in the context of reference frames and suchlike is misleading. > >> >>> That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher >>> dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, >>> as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never >>> the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the >>> universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the >>> universe: this is cheating don't you think? >>> >>> No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is >> our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at >> worst a non sequitur. >> > > Ah, but neglecting the "interpretation" and its selection bias - as if it > did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. > As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific observer is making a specific measurement. > > >> We don't "extract sapience" (whatever that means) by inventing >> mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage >> about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the >> world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for >> our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if >> anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them >> to explain why. >> > > Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering of > events. People like Renata > Loll<http://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/research/research.html>and Kevin > Knuth <http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881> have some pretty good arguments > against the idea that space-time is something that "we are embedded in". > This "fishbowl" or "container" conceptualization of space-time is just > another version of the Laplacean vision... > I don't know about Kevin Knuth, what is he suggesting? Renate Loll is I believe an exponent of CDT, which as far as I know doesn't make any changes to the notion that events and so on are embedded in space time. > My wording involving sapience was bad/unhelpful.... > I know I have oversimplified and even misused words on occasion, but I'm merely a humble housewife / editrix. I'd hope a philosopher would be extra careful about word choice! -- 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.
