On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:52:47 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:> > > wrote: >> >> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that >>>>> from the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If >>>>> something can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. >>>>> >>>>> Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the >>> three sentences above, so would appreciate a "blow by blow" explanation if >>> that's OK). >>> >>> By saying that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness, I mean that all >> mathematical expressions are intentional communication of a conscious >> appreciation of symbolic relations. >> > > In itself, that looks like a confusion of the map with the territory. > Fortunately, however, you have a lot more to say on the subject... > > >> If we start with disembodied mathematical concepts as realities in their >> own right, then we are automatically smuggling in all kinds of assumptions >> about what the universe comes with out of the box. Integers, operators, and >> equivalence are the end result of a kind of manufacturing process which >> includes a lot of ontological raw materials; sequence, representation, >> symmetry, universality, ideal objects, participation in manipulating >> formulas...lots of things which have no plausible origin within >> mathematics. They are all figures of experience which are valid because of >> aesthetic familiarity - because of the sense that cognitive awareness >> furnishes us with. If math can do all of that by itself, then an additional >> type of 'consciousness' would be redundant. >> >> That's a good point. > > At a slight tangent, it seems possible that the universe has some of these > concepts built in (in some sense). This isn't an objection to what you're > saying, but maybe it should be borne in mind, in case these are somehow > indicative of what can be considered primitive... >
Yes exactly. I would say that *our kind of view* of the totality includes the appearance of those concepts being built in to the universe. Locally that is true, just as locally it seems to me that the meaning of these letters and words as English language is now, as an adult, part of the scenery. I think that because mathematical relations are almost completely primitive, they appear almost as a shadow of what is absolutely primitive, which is sense itself. Being that it is more primitive than space or time (which, as Bruno suggests, are mathematically derived), math is eternal and instantaneous relative to our awareness. Our local frame of reference is nested within schemas which are both larger and smaller: astrophysics-QM<>geology-chemistry<>evolution-microbiology<>zoology-physiology<>anthropology-neurology. The position of our frame of reference flattens the more distant frames as they occur on scales which are too remote, too fast and too slow, for us to relate to as consciousness. > Equivalence - all electrons (say) appear to be identical. > The more remote the frame of reference (for us, Astrophysics and QM are the most remote), the more generic and mechanical appearances tend to be. The electron itself may not even be 'real' so much as perceptual 'fill-in' from those remote levels. There may not be individual electrons at all, but more of a stereotype of a whole category of low level experiences which are, ontologically, none of our business. > > Counting - a BEC (for example) does a sort of simple arithmetic, in that > the universe keeps track of the number of objects involved even when they > aren't even in theory distinguishable. > Sure, the universe keeps track of everything. It is only our nested insensitivity which obscures almost everything from us. I would not say that the BEC *does* arithmetic, so much as the fidelity of arithmetic sense is preserved (as one of many layers of sense that is preserved, at or beneath our measurement). > > Symmetry - as I'm sure you know there all lots of examples of this in > physics. All the conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc) can be expressed > in terms of symmetries. > Yes, symmetry is a key principle, but it is an aesthetic phenomenon already. We can define symmetry in specific terms, but the presence of symmetry requires some aesthetic description to be realized. There can be no theory of symmetry without the reality of spatiotemporal experiences. -- 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.
