On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 09 Apr 2014, at 20:12, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience to > beg a question in metaphysics > > Richard: I do that all the time. > > > > Where? I am not sure you ever did this. I am not talking on the personal > 1p reference which influences our choice of axioms for example, but on the > use of the personal reference in an argument, like when people say "it is > obvious that ...", or "God told me...", etc. > > > My bad. I thought you meant personal experience > > I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string theory that > result in a metaphysics that explains personal & second hand > experience.Here is an example: > > > > I usually forget to mention that the existence of a Metaverse is motivated by its solution of the hierarchy problem in the Standard Model where the force of gravity is small compared to any of the 3 gauge forces. The hypothesis is that gravity is free to propagate in the Metaverse, but the gauge forces are confined to the brane of the Universe. Harvard Physics Professor Lisa Randall was the leading investigator that established the need for a Metaverse. A theory for the properties of the Metaverse may be found by Dimensional Analysis, even simpler than what I learned as an undergrad mech engr major. Occum's Razor dictates that we start from a total of 26 dimensions. Following some theoretical results derived from string theory, we split those dimensions into 12 for the Universe and 14 for the Metaverse. We factor into this dimensional analysis that superstring theory comes in modules of 10 dimensions. In this context it turns out that 2 of the 12 Universe dimensions form the toroidal surface of the Universe, and the other 10 turn into 4D-spacetime plus a fine fluid of 6d-SGC* particles that permeate the Universe.. So what happens to the 14 Metaverse dimensions. Again according to Occum's Razor we extract a 10d-module that is the blueprint for how the Universe forms a 4D-spacetime and 6d-SGC* particles. So the Metaverse also has a 4D-spacetime and a fluid of 6d-SGC* particles, according to Occum, which makes interaction between the cosmos and the meta-cosmos so much easier. That leaves 4 dimensions for the structure of the Metaverse corresponding to the 2 dimensions that formed the torus that is the Universe. Again and again Occum Rules. The structure of the Metaverse is Cartesian. The conjecture is that the 4D-meta-structure includes a 3D-space corresponding to the Metaverse 3D-space at some nominal time that is fuzzy because of SR&GR. But that slice of space is small compared to the total 4D-structure volume. Again invoking Occum, the 4th structure dimension is timelike. It is a space dimension containing a measure or scale of time going into the past. This 4th meta-dimension may be infinite in both the past and future. Or according to Luria it may have a beginning, and perhaps even an end. Furthermore the conjecture is that the results of every physical particle interaction (in the Metaverse including in each embedded universe) is recorded. Nature has a memory. Not known what Occum thinks about that. Richard Ruquist1448 *SGC: String Gas Cosmology (Brandenberger http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3247) > > > > > ? > > > Looks like the thunderous silence of Vimalakirti :) > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 09 Apr 2014, at 03:18, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: >>> >>> I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back >>> through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: >>> >>> "I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I >>> think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out >>> the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like >>> the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's >>> like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to >>> side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must >>> experience terror'". >>> >>> >>> Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard >>> to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. >>> >>> >> Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough dreams... >> However, this dream had a particular intensity and feeling of importance >> that made it stand out as not "just another dream". A Big Dream in other >> words. This subjective impression proves nothing of course, but strengthens >> my personal conviction. Different standards of evidence and different >> epistemologies necessarily apply to the individual and the collective. >> >> >> Yes, and admitting mechanism and the classical theory of knowledge, we >> can undersatnd that the machine are already confronted to the different >> logics between the individual, the collective, and also the difference >> between the provable, the knowable, the observable. >> >> >> >> >> >> For a long time, science did not "believe in" lucid dreams - it took some >> rigorous and repeatable laboratory studies to prove the phenomenon. >> >> >> The first doing an experience showing their "verifiable" existence was a >> parapsychologist, and he published in a review of parapsychology, which was >> of course ignored, probably for that reason, by the "mainstream". >> >> >> >> But anyone who has had a lucid dream simply knows they happen, and could >> know it long before scientific method could catch up. >> >> >> Yes. And I can imagine that the ocular motor neurons would have been >> inhibited too, and the lucid dream would have stayed ... in parapsychology. >> >> >> >> >> Certainly one should expose one's own beliefs to critical scrutiny, >> including the possibility of coincidence in this case, but my point is that >> is sometimes both rational >> >> >> OK. >> >> >> >> and correct >> >> >> That is ambiguous. >> >> >> >> to entertain beliefs outside of the established body of scientific >> evidence. >> >> >> >> The scientific evidence is always theory dependent, and all theories are >> false, at different degrees, so, well, it is certainly sound to entertain >> beliefs outside the "scientific evidence". >> >> And 1500 times so in fields where we tolerate the authoritative argument, >> like theology or health to give two examples. >> >> >> >> >> I think that is especially the case in the area of these boundary >> experiences of human consciousness which seem inextricably bound up with >> meaning, and therefore extremely difficult to replicate. For example the >> well-known phenomenon of people experiencing strange phenomena at the >> moment of a loved one's death at some other location. There are some >> well-documented historical examples of this, but a scientific study would >> be extremely hard to carry out - you could take thousands of subjects and >> ask them about any experiences they had at the time of a relative's death, >> but the results would always be subject to doubt as a mere collection of >> anecdotes. Feynman of course tells the story of suddenly thinking of his >> grandmother, and then nothing happening to her! - and notes how, if she had >> died, he could have been tempted to take this experience for clairvoyance, >> but instead he forgot about it - or would have if he hadn't thought about >> the implications. But what he doesn't say is whether this thought of his >> grandmother was particularly forceful, strange or compelling. What usually >> convinces people that an experience is more than just coincidence is this >> compelling quality - as in my dream, it's not experienced as just another >> thought in the random, fleeting play of the mind. But how to measure such >> qualia? (And this is not to say that there aren't also many cases where a >> true coincidence is taken for more than that - maybe Liz's experience is an >> example, we cannot know.) >> >> >> >> No, we cannot know. We can experience with mind altering substance, but >> we are automatically biased by our own theories. The similarity in the >> reports still provide information, but it is hard to interpretet and quite >> theory dependent. >> yet, such experience can be useful to debunks sub-theories (assumption, >> presumption) we were not aware of. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be nice to make a pool on all people having a dream diary, but >>> dreams of catastrophes are not so rare, and the possibly convincing clues >>> will be in the details. >>> >>> >>> >>> That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've become >>> convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the outer world. >>> Although I'm agnostic on the "comp" question, it seems to me to be not at >>> all precluded by comp (though the question might be: what *would be* >>> precluded by comp? It seems to permit much more than it precludes). >>> >>> >>> I am agnostic on comp too, to be sure. (Well, comp precludes not being >>> agnostic!). >>> Comp (+ Theaetetus) precludes any physics not given by the S4Grz1, or >>> Z1*, or X1* logics. So we have to do the math, as I try to do in the modal >>> or math thread. >>> >>> Question: and is any physics not precluded compulsory? It seems to me it >> must be. >> >> >> >> That is what I was saying. Physics is so compulsory that all universal >> machine believing in enough induction principle "lives" the physical, which >> instantiations will particularize through the differentiation of the >> initial consciousness flux (locally determined by universal numbers, and >> globally (below the subst level) determined by *all* universal numbers). >> Formally we get three physical type of realities, each in the modal systems >> mentioned above. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the intervention >>> of a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your rational self. The numinous >>> is knocking! >>> >>> >>> The numinous knocks all the time, it is just a question of being open to >>> it, I think. By the gap between the x and x* logics, with x being used for >>> the logics above, I could argue that the honest introspective machine can >>> hardly miss it, but it is not well seen in our culture, as most people >>> referring to it have been called heretics and banished or worst, for a long >>> time. We are just not modern, nor rational about it, I'm afraid. >>> >> >> I completely agree. But sometimes, at least from a Jungian perspective, >> it knocks louder. And when it gets loud enough, failure to open the door >> can actually make you sick. >> >> >> I think you should open the door but only as long as you can maintain the >> doubt in *all* theories, and as long as you never try to use a reference to >> an experience to beg a question in metaphysics. >> You can use reports and suggest interpretation/theories. If not you get >> pseudo-science or pseudo-mysticism, or paranoïa (whose most typical symptom >> is public certainty, ... sometimes contagious, which can lead to genocide >> notably). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:00:09 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: >>>> >>>> Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to >>>> the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as >>>> in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying "no >>>> thanks we don't indulge" or words to that effect. >>>> >>>> I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. >>>> >>>> A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 >>>> and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy >>>> came to the door with a copy of the "Watchtower" and a personal message >>>> from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. >>>> >>>> Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a >>>> situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked >>>> him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a "worry dream". >>>> >>>> Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> 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/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> 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/d/optout. >> >> >> 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/d/optout. >> > > > -- > 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/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
