And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances of
ASPECT 1
- 3-line Narnia -
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
- McSweeney's -
2008/10/13 Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about
QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the
Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality
that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as
these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any
new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists
often discuss them nevertheless.
-
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to know
where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to give you
the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you likename any XYZ
interpretation, ABC interpretationsBlah interpretations... So what? You
say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not see that
I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled 'taboo' ? Did you
not see that my supervisor uttered forbidden? Read Stapp's book: BOHR
makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is programmed to think by
the training a physicist gets...It's like there's some sort of retreat into
a safety-zone whereby if I make noises like this then I'll get listened
to
*and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion.* This
is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that fact that
science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a club and the
players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even plainer with set
theory:
ASPECT 1 = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
ASPECT 2 = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
FACT
ASPECT 1: = {Null}
FACT
ASPECT 2 = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor do
they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who has a
clue about it agrees that this is the case}
In other words, scientists have added special laws to ASPECT 2 that
masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs. Beliefs
about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of quantum mechanical
descriptions. EG: Stapp's cloud-like depiction. I put it to you that
reality ASPECT 1 could have every single particle in an exquisitely
defined position simultaneously with just as exquisitely well defined
momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or physical 'fuzziness'. I quite
well defined particle operating in a dimensionality slightly higher than our
own could easily appear fuzzy.There is merely *lack of knowledge* and
the reality of us as observers altering those very things when we
observestandard measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is
COMPLETELY consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons
are 'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an aspect 1 reality
that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To believe
that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths seems to be
consistent with that...utter delusion...
Physics has also added a special law to ASPECT 2, a 'law of nature' which
reads as follows: Physicists do not and shall not populate set ASPECT 1
because, well just because.
Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible for
everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity to
populate ASPECT 2. Abstractions of reality derived through
P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
necessity, and if incorporated in ASPECT 2 as an explanation of
P-consciousness, become meta-beliefI belief that this other aspect 2
law has explained P-consciousness when it clearly does not because NONE
of aspect 2 PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS. As to
'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an ASPECT 1 reality - responsible
for the faculty that provides all observation, any less witnessed than
anything is ASPECT 2? You are implicltly denying P-cosnciousness ITSELF
and positing it as having been already explained in some way by CONTENTS of
P-consciousness (that is
