On 20 Jan 2015, at 07:17, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
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.
OK. But it will help you, when you take the computationalist
hypothesis very seriously, to not consider that proton are made of
arithmetical relations. It will be more like if they are dreamed. If
you dream that you are at the beach, playing with the sand, you can
conceive that such a sand is not made of grain of sands, just dreamed
like that, and although proton are not exactly dreamed in that way, as
they involved infinity of dreams (and dreams = computation seen from
inside, with "seen from inside" defined by variants of the logic of
self-reference).
With digital mechanism (computationalism), below your substitution
level there is a competition between an infinity of universal numbers,
to bring your continuations: the physical remains something quite
special in our lives.
The simple finite groups might play a role in the measure problem, by
moonshine. Physics has a reason, and metaphysics too.
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!
Thanks :)
Bruno
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:35:43 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com]
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.
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.
--
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.
