Chris,
Mostly I agree with everything you said. Specifically:
By corollary and by symmetry this same optic of doubt can shine upon the
notion of a real physical entity underlying the stuff we call real. What is
real about a proton, electron, photon…etc.?
Roger: I agree. Proton, electron, etc. are just names for existent
entities with certain properties. Even if these entities are abstract
arithmetical propositions, the existent entities previously called the
"absolute lack of all" (me), two of these entities looking at each other
would seem as real to each other as two "rock-solid" particles. Reality is
relative in this way, I think.
In regard to the auto-emergence and "that's just the way it is" stuff, I
also totally agree. It could be true, but is just not very satisfying to
me to say "that's just the way it is". I was trying to do the autoemergent
thing by saying that even what we previously thought of as the "absolute
lack-of-all" is an existent entity idea and showing how it could
self-replicate to provide an expanding space like our universe. I think
one of the issues is in our perhaps incorrect distinction between
"something" and "nothing", which is what I was trying to get at. This
distinction keeps us wondering well why is it all here. But, I'll keep
working on it as we all should on our ideas.
As above, good luck to all of us! And, listen to The Who!
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>]
>
>
>
> Jason et al.,
>
>
>
> Overall, I can never disprove that mathematical constructs don't exist
> outside the head somewhere just like I can't prove my view that what we've
> previously considered to be the "absolute lack-of-all" is itself an
> existent entity just because no one can never or directly experiment on
> either these mathematical constructs or the "absolute lack-of-all". But,
> what we can do is to provide logical evidence for our ideas as we've each
> been trying to do on this list, and to take our ideas and try to build a
> model of reality out of them that can eventually make testable predictions.
> This is what many on this list are working on, and I applaud them for it
> even if I don't agree with the underlying idea. Eventually, all of us will
> need to make some testable predictions, which if they get experimental
> evidence backing them up,will convince others to other follow up on our
> ideas and models. This is what I think many of us are working on either in
> our spare time or full-time. Good luck to all of us!
>
>
>
> Nice statement with a good sentiment behind it. This list (and its long
> rich trail of past threads, which contain some real gems) is a lively place
> to be; hard to keep up sometimes.
>
> I share your view that it cannot be proved (yet at least) that
> mathematical entities – and all other pure abstract system entities (as in
> say the laws of the universe) – have an existence independent from and
> external to our human cultural history. It can be equally hypothesized that
> our laws of physics, our logic, our math are all our models (our historical
> evolution of thought through recorded history)… models that the cultures
> emergent from our species have evolved to explain experienced reality…. We
> have our current best fit models – both in science and in math.
>
> By corollary and by symmetry this same optic of doubt can shine upon the
> notion of a real physical entity underlying the stuff we call real. What is
> real about a proton, electron, photon…etc.? Other than their properties and
> their current state. There is an undeniable (I take that back, you will
> always find somebody, somewhere, who will disagree)… a mostly undeniable
> realness to the macro experience of being in reality. It is a realness that
> has repeating patterns in it (wave interaction for example) that we have
> noticed as a species and ridden like clues to the pretty good models we now
> have. Personally prefer to be neither Aristotelian; nor however a Platonic
> idealist.
>
>
>
> But not a TOE, yet!
>
> And certainly not one with an auto-emergent story… yet. A TOE, with an
> auto-emergent origin story for me is the holy grail.
>
> When I say origin story it should not be confused with having the one way
> vector of time perspective that gives us the illusion of past, present, and
> future states. I find it quite possible that time itself is emergent; that
> our experience of time is merely some particular stack ordering of observer
> moments in 4-D spacetime. This idea also naturally extends (and lends)
> itself to a MWI hyper-stack of other universes, in the tree of all quantum
> outcomes.
>
> I find any TOE that side steps the question of emergence, by just saying
> that’s how it always was to be unsatisfying. For example the cyclic
> universe hypothesis, certainly an elegant idea that attempts to tie it all
> up, but for me fails by hitting that “well it just always was” wall.
>
> This “it just always was” position, is a major assumption, that cannot be
> answered by trying to frame the asking of the question as being driven by
> having the perspective of being immersed within a temporal point of view.
> This is a deeper question that is orthogonal to and can’t be answered by
> assertions or attributions of it being immersed in the temporal POV. It is
> another and profoundly separate question.
>
> Even a purely abstract system – especially if it is posited to have and be
> imbued with external fundamental existence (existence that even underlies
> and underpins an illusory emergent physical existence)… even a pure
> abstract system such as this should be able to explain its own emergence.
> If it has no auto-emergent explanation then it is incomplete – IMO.
>
> Incomplete, may be the best we will ever be able to achieve, we may
> discover that at some level it is impossible for us to transcend our POV to
> mentally adopt an encompassing abstract POV.
>
> There is no theory – and even more so TOE -- that does not rest on
> assumptions. Unstated assumptions, remain assumptions, including the
> assumption in an Aristotelean realness to fundamental particles (we can
> measure, and through our models predict, but we can never see).
>
>
>
> A lot of really good ideas being shared and argued about too. And for the
> most part people are trying to be very clear about their assumptions. On a
> kind of meta level I think there can be said to exist a quality of
> excellence for auto-emergent TOE requiring fewer fundamental assumptions.
> The limit of assumptions could potentially be zero, but perhaps must be
> greater than zero (for some intrinsic reason).
>
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> P.S. One thing that I know exists is that I have to go to work tomorrow
> (had today off), and I don't like it! :-)
>
> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 5:48:27 PM UTC-5, Roger wrote:
>
>
>
> Roger: Even if no mind has yet conceived the the 10^(10^(10^100))th
> decimal point of pi, the pi proposition and therefore the process of
> calculating its 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point and being confident that
> if you do the process that that number is either 0-9 are all located inside
> the mind/head. My view is that whenever we talk about something existing,
> we have to specify where and when it exists, that is, in what context or
> domain it exists. A thing can exist in one place and not another. A ball
> can exist outside the head, and a mental construct labeled "the concept of
> a ball" can exist inside the head.
>
>
>
> If a ball can exist outside the mind/head, why can't the
> 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi exist outside the mind/head? What
> property must a thing have to have an independent existence outside of any
> mind? (according to your theory?)
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> So, if the pi process were carried out inside the mind/head long enough to
> figure out the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point, that mental construct for
> that number (which would be 0-9) would exist inside the mind/head but not
> outside the mind/head. So, the mind is able to reify things (like
> the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi) so that they exist but so that
> they only exist inside the mind/head and not outside the mind/head.
>
>
>
>
>
> Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't mean
> that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If the pi
> proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi can be shown
> outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence for the existence of the
> pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi existing
> outside the mind/head, I'd be happy to accept it. I can see that a circle
> can exist outside the head, but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head,
> the proposition that if you divide the circle's circumference by its
> diameter you get pi.
>
> --
> 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/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.
