subject:"Re\: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist."

On 10 March 2014 17:39, Russell Standish  wrote:

>
> If I ask you to measure the value of alpha to 5 significant places,
> and I was to measure the same thing, then we can compare
> notes. Intrasubjective consistency predicts that we should get the
> same numerical value. Moreover, it would predict that we cannot find
> somebody who gets a different result, provided they followed the
> physical measurement protocol correctly.
>

Well, yes. And FAPP we all agree on this. The same can be said if we both
agree that there is a particular type of tree outside the window, for
example, etc. But surely that doesn't actually prove I didn't dream your
agreement (or whatever else could go wrong with intersubjective
consistency) ?

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-09 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:55:27PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 10 March 2014 16:50, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> > > On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective
> > consistency is
> > > > not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality
> > > > independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly
> > > so when you have to deal with teenagers...)
> > >
> >
> > Granted intersubjective consistency is a little hard to test
> > directly. However, it is a consequence of the anthropic principle: If
> > I am consistent with my environment (as a consequence of the AP), then
> > so must all other observers sharing that environment. The AP is
> > empirically quite well tested, ISTM.
> >
> > The Occam catastrophe issue, as discussed in my book, means that the
> > AP, and consequently intersubjective agreement on part of observed
> > reality is a consequence of bitstring ensemble theories.
> >
> 
> I intend to (re-)re-read your book soon so I will check that.
> 
> In the meantimne.it's all very well having theoretical justification,
> and in practice I agree it seems fairly reasonable to assumebut can it
> be tested any more directly?
> 

If I ask you to measure the value of alpha to 5 significant places,
and I was to measure the same thing, then we can compare
notes. Intrasubjective consistency predicts that we should get the
same numerical value. Moreover, it would predict that we cannot find
somebody who gets a different result, provided they followed the
physical measurement protocol correctly.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 10 March 2014 16:50, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> > On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective
> consistency is
> > > not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality
> > > independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim.
> > >
> >
> > Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly
> > so when you have to deal with teenagers...)
> >
>
> Granted intersubjective consistency is a little hard to test
> directly. However, it is a consequence of the anthropic principle: If
> I am consistent with my environment (as a consequence of the AP), then
> so must all other observers sharing that environment. The AP is
> empirically quite well tested, ISTM.
>
> The Occam catastrophe issue, as discussed in my book, means that the
> AP, and consequently intersubjective agreement on part of observed
> reality is a consequence of bitstring ensemble theories.
>

I intend to (re-)re-read your book soon so I will check that.

In the meantimne.it's all very well having theoretical justification,
and in practice I agree it seems fairly reasonable to assumebut can it
be tested any more directly?

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-09 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> >
> > But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is
> > not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality
> > independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim.
> >
> 
> Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly
> so when you have to deal with teenagers...)
> 

Granted intersubjective consistency is a little hard to test
directly. However, it is a consequence of the anthropic principle: If
I am consistent with my environment (as a consequence of the AP), then
so must all other observers sharing that environment. The AP is
empirically quite well tested, ISTM.

The Occam catastrophe issue, as discussed in my book, means that the
AP, and consequently intersubjective agreement on part of observed
reality is a consequence of bitstring ensemble theories.

> For practical purposes we assume both intersubjective consistency and the
> existence of an external reality. However when discussing ontology it's
> best to remember that these are provisional hypotheses. (It's probably best
> *not* to remember that while crossing the road, though!)
> 
> -- 
> 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.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish  wrote:

>
> But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is
> not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality
> independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim.
>

Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly
so when you have to deal with teenagers...)

For practical purposes we assume both intersubjective consistency and the
existence of an external reality. However when discussing ontology it's
best to remember that these are provisional hypotheses. (It's probably best
*not* to remember that while crossing the road, though!)

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-09 Thread Russell Standish

On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid 
> with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain 
> the observable universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories 
> DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy 
> nilly
> 
> I would be surprised if Brent, a physicist, disagrees with that but I'll 
> let him speak for himself.
> 
> Edgar
> 

Actually, both Brent and Liz made comments here which I broadly agree
with, as well as pointing out David Deutsch's position, which I do
find myself in disagreement, for much the same reasons they mentioned.

I would describe myself as an agnostic realist, not an
a-realist. There may very well be some external reality propping
everything up, but if COMP is true, and more importantly, if our
observed reality is some random selection from the space of all
possible bits strings compatible with our existence (eg we are facing
UD*), then the properties of that external reality are fundamentally
unknowable. It is about as useful a hypothesis as a deist God who
doesn't interfere in the running of the universe.

One of David's strongest arguments in favour of a genuine external
reality is the fact that the physical universe seems incapable of
computing things that Turing machines are incapable of. His counter
example is the Infinity Hotel universe, based on the popular "Infinity
Hotel" story used to introduce Cantor's paradise to maths
students. The Infinity Hotel is capable of computing things which are
impossible in our universe, or in any Turning machine, for that
matter. It is an example of a hypercomputer.

This is not a problem with COMP, which axiomatically supposes the
conventional Turing model of computation is all that exists. But it
may be an issue for my somewhat more general "Nothing" model of all
bitstrings, as a priori, there is no restriction of computational
models. It remains an open problem to show whether the "Nothing"
naturally implies the Turing model, or the converse, that
hypercomputers are indeed possible in that idea (in which case my
thesis would be refuted, and David would essentially be right).

But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is
not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality
independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim.

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 10 March 2014 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/9/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> "God did it" isn't a theory or an explanation unless it goes into more
> depth about what God is, why it exists and how it does things, and uses
> these details to make some testable predictions that will separate it out
> from other theories (Allah did it, Zeus did it, Odin did it, Amaterasu did
> it, etc). Actually GDI has a whole raft of predictions about how God will
> take care of his chosen group, how he will end the world in, er, some time
> soon, how he created the world in 7 days, how he will intercede if you pray
> hard enough, etc.
>
> None of which so far appear to have been borne out, making GDI both
> testable and fallible, also tested and failed.
>
>
> The predictions have all failed, but the *explanations* are batting a
> thousand.  There's a whole industry called apologia turning them out as
> needed.
>

By constantly changing them, yes. We have always been at war with Eastasia
- I mean Oceana...

Another important attribute of a good theory (or "explanation") according
to DD is that it should be hard - preferably impossible -  to vary it
without breaking 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-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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote:

On 10 March 2014 10:20, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote:

On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>> wrote:

Russell,

Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally
valid with
which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain
the
observable universe.

This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in "The
Fabric of
Reality". (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical
approach, I
think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions
built
into itunless they correct me on this.)

Deutsch pushes it strongly in "The Beginning of Infinity", but I have some
reservations about his emphasis. I think what makes a theory good is
multidimensional: predictive power, scope, testability, and consilience.
It seems
that Deutsch recognizes these factors as part of what makes a good
explanation, but
"explanation" invites an interpretation of "psychological satisfaction".
Many
people think "God did it." is a great explanation because it works as
psychological
satisfaction. It's got lots of scope, works every time, and is consilient
with
almost everything. It just fails miserably on predictive power and
testability. I
know Deutsch doesn't mean it this way, but it's why I don't like his
emphasis on the
word "explanation" over the more neutral "theory".

But are you happy with what he says apart from his nomenclature?

(If so, I guess his explanation has achieved "psychological satisfaction"...)

"God did it" isn't a theory or an explanation unless it goes into more depth about what
God is, why it exists and how it does things, and uses these details to make some
testable predictions that will separate it out from other theories (Allah did it, Zeus
did it, Odin did it, Amaterasu did it, etc). Actually GDI has a whole raft of
predictions about how God will take care of his chosen group, how he will end the world
in, er, some time soon, how he created the world in 7 days, how he will intercede if you
pray hard enough, etc.

None of which so far appear to have been borne out, making GDI both testable and
fallible, also tested and failed.

The predictions have all failed, but the *explanations* are batting a thousand. There's a
whole industry called apologia turning them out as needed.

Brent

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 10 March 2014 10:20, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Russell,
>>
>>  Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally
>> valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best
>> explain the observable universe.
>>
>
>  This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in "The
> Fabric of Reality". (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a
> practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are
> metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.)
>
>  Deutsch pushes it strongly in "The Beginning of Infinity", but I have
> some reservations about his emphasis.  I think what makes a theory good is
> multidimensional: predictive power, scope, testability, and consilience.
> It seems that Deutsch recognizes these factors as part of what makes a good
> explanation, but "explanation" invites an interpretation of "psychological
> satisfaction".  Many people think "God did it." is a great explanation
> because it works as psychological satisfaction.  It's got lots of scope,
> works every time, and is consilient with almost everything.  It just fails
> miserably on predictive power and testability.  I know Deutsch doesn't mean
> it this way, but it's why I don't like his emphasis on the word
> "explanation" over the more neutral "theory".
>

But are you happy with what he says apart from his nomenclature?

(If so, I guess his explanation has achieved "psychological
satisfaction"...)

"God did it" isn't a theory or an explanation unless it goes into more
depth about what God is, why it exists and how it does things, and uses
these details to make some testable predictions that will separate it out
from other theories (Allah did it, Zeus did it, Odin did it, Amaterasu did
it, etc). Actually GDI has a whole raft of predictions about how God will
take care of his chosen group, how he will end the world in, er, some time
soon, how he created the world in 7 days, how he will intercede if you pray
hard enough, etc.

None of which so far appear to have been borne out, making GDI both
testable and fallible, also tested and failed.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-09 Thread meekerdb

On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote:

On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>> wrote:

Russell,

Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid
with which
I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the
observable
universe.

This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in "The Fabric of
Reality". (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical approach, I
think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions built into
itunless they correct me on this.)

Deutsch pushes it strongly in "The Beginning of Infinity", but I have some reservations
about his emphasis. I think what makes a theory good is multidimensional: predictive
power, scope, testability, and consilience. It seems that Deutsch recognizes these
factors as part of what makes a good explanation, but "explanation" invites an
interpretation of "psychological satisfaction". Many people think "God did it." is a
great explanation because it works as psychological satisfaction. It's got lots of scope,
works every time, and is consilient with almost everything. It just fails miserably on
predictive power and testability. I know Deutsch doesn't mean it this way, but it's why I
don't like his emphasis on the word "explanation" over the more neutral "theory".

Brent

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual
reality. They
are not just made up by humans willy nilly

Not willy nilly, certainly. However the assumption that they reflect an actual reality
is only an assumption, partly because it's impossible to prove and partly because, in
any case, all theories are open to revision. (This is why people keep asking you for
some testable predictions of p-time and Bruno for testable predictions of comp, for
example.)

--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Russell,
>
> Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid
> with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain
> the observable universe.
>

This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in "The
Fabric of Reality". (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a
practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are
metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.)

> Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual
> reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly
>

Not willy nilly, certainly. However the assumption that they reflect an
actual reality is only an assumption, partly because it's impossible to
prove and partly because, in any case, all theories are open to revision.
(This is why people keep asking you for some testable predictions of p-time
and Bruno for testable predictions of comp, for example.)

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-09 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Russell,

Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid 
with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain 
the observable universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories 
DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy 
nilly

I would be surprised if Brent, a physicist, disagrees with that but I'll 
let him speak for himself.

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:52:32 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance 
> > depend on "how humans see the world"? 
> > 
> > If so I disagree, 
> > 
> > Edgar 
> > 
>
> Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's 
> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on 
> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this. 
>
> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of 
> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our 
> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a 
> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather 
> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory 
> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 08 Mar 2014, at 14:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Bruno,

Yes, of course I agree the physical universe is not primitive.


OK. So what is primitive?



How many times do I have to say that it arises from computational  
space before it registers with you?


I got that, but I still miss your definition of "computational".

All I can say, is that it is highly non standard, and, well, that you  
have not yet defined it. As it seems to be your fundamental primitive  
things, you have to defined it clearly, or you can prove everything  
you want.







I've also said over and over that the "physical universe" as we  
imagine it is NOT "out there".


So the p-time is not there too. OK?




The physical universe as we imagine it is IN THERE, in our minds.  
It's how we internally represent the logico-mathematical universe  
which is what is 'out there' but which we are also local parts of in  
computational space.


I can be OK, with this. It follows from computationalism indeed, and  
then it follows from arithmetic also.






I have no idea what you mean by "numbers indexical personal views".


It is the indexicals, like now, here, "I" (in 1p, and 3p) notions that  
we get from the mathematical theory of self-reference, as developed by  
sound classical universal Turing machine (enough rich), as shown by  
Gödel, Löb, Solovay, and which is captured by the modal logic G and G*  
and their intensional (modal, code-related) variants. I explain this a  
lot here, and you might consult my older posts, or my papers, or the  
literature (mathematical logic),  or wait when we come back on this,  
as we do that recurrently.


You seem to ignore that a tiny part of the arithmetical reality  
contains a full computational space, with both the terminating and non  
terminating computations well emulated, and the UDA explains why our  
consciousness differentiates from that structure. Then AUDA shows how  
that is testable, and partially tested.


Bruno




On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:46:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of  
empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of  
science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex  
technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So  
there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which  
minds in general agree no matter how minds work...


But you do agree that such "physical universe out there" is not  
primitive, and arise from the "computational space".


Then if you use "computation" in the standard sense (Church thesis,  
etc.), then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of "  
primitively real universe" come from. Both time and space, and  
energy, comes from numbers indexical personal views. You might  
follow the current explanation or read the papers. It makes  
computationalism testable (and partially tested).


Bruno






Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is  
no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events  
and observers.


Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation  
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually  
observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In  
fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or  
energy, they are never observations of empty space itself.


Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between  
matter and energy, either. They are  in fact  
interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of  
nerve signals by our brain cells.


That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at  
two different levels of description and saying one is wrong because  
I can talk at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a  
lot more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer  
screen.  "I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty concrete and  
direct.  On a physical model I could say "Photons from excited  
phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in my retina  
which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing  
physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via  
preception, instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer  
screen"."...which pretty much brings me back to just "I'm observing  
a computer screen."  A circle of explanation.


Brent



The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or  
more modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a  
hypothesis which we use to account for the apparent regularities  
in our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis  
that we can't observe its components directly because we don't  
observe a

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread LizR

On 9 March 2014 19:23, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/8/2014 9:53 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish  wrote:
>>
>>>  Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
>>> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
>>> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.
>>>
>>> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
>>> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
>>> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
>>> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
>>> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
>>> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.
>>>
>>
>>  This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue
>> theory (I think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary
>> complication apparently simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy
>> conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also the simplest choice
>> available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint we
>> normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is
>> that that is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a
>> metaphysical assumption.
>>
>>
>>  Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty
>> millenia or so before Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was
>> *obvious* that everything on Earth tended to run down and come to rest,
>> *its natural state*.
>>
>>
> In other words, science has made progress.
>
> Just don't get too cocky.
>
>
I don't think you need to worry about that.

:-)




"And If a double decker bus crashes into us
To die by your side is such a heavenly way to die..."

-- The Smiths

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread meekerdb


On 3/8/2014 9:53 PM, LizR wrote:

On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:

On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> wrote:

Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.

In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.


This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue 
theory (I
think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary complication 
apparently
simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy conserved isn't *just* a 
human
choice, it's also the simplest choice available. Or at least it appears to 
be.
Surely this is a constraint we normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and 
most
reasonable assumption is that that is how the universe actually works, 
although
admittedly this is a metaphysical assumption.


Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty millenia 
or so
before Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was *obvious* that 
everything on
Earth tended to run down and come to rest, *its natural state*.

In other words, science has made progress.



Just don't get too cocky.

Brent

--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread LizR

On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish  wrote:
>
>>  Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
>> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
>> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.
>>
>> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
>> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
>> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
>> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
>> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
>> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.
>>
>
>  This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue
> theory (I think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary
> complication apparently simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy
> conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also the simplest choice
> available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint we
> normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is
> that that is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a
> metaphysical assumption.
>
>
> Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty
> millenia or so before Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was
> *obvious* that everything on Earth tended to run down and come to rest,
> *its natural state*.
>
>
In other words, science has made progress.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread meekerdb

On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish > wrote:

Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.

In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.

This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue theory (I think
it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary complication apparently simply for
the sake of it. A theory with energy conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also
the simplest choice available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint
we normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is that that
is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a metaphysical assumption.

Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty millenia or so before
Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was *obvious* that everything on Earth tended
to run down and come to rest, *its natural state*.

Brent

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread LizR

On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish  wrote:

> Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.
>
> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.
>

This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue
theory (I think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary
complication apparently simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy
conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also the simplest choice
available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint we
normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is
that that is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a
metaphysical assumption.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance 
> depend on "how humans see the world"?
> 
> If so I disagree,
> 
> Edgar
> 

Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.

In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.

Cheers

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Bruno,

Yes, of course I agree the physical universe is not primitive. How many 
times do I have to say that it arises from computational space before it 
registers with you?

I've also said over and over that the "physical universe" as we imagine it 
is NOT "out there". The physical universe as we imagine it is IN THERE, in 
our minds. It's how we internally represent the logico-mathematical 
universe which is what is 'out there' but which we are also local parts of 
in computational space.

I have no idea what you mean by "numbers indexical personal views".

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:46:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
> minds work...
>
>
> But you do agree that such "physical universe out there" is not primitive, 
> and arise from the "computational space".
>
> Then if you use "computation" in the standard sense (Church thesis, etc.), 
> then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of " primitively real 
> universe" come from. Both time and space, and energy, comes from numbers 
> indexical personal views. You might follow the current explanation or read 
> the papers. It makes computationalism testable (and partially tested).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>   
>>  The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
>> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
>> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
>> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
>> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
>> you end up with solipsism.
>>
>>  
>>  -- 
>> 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-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 t

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Russell,

You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance 
depend on "how humans see the world"?

If so I disagree,

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:53:40 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, 
> each 
> > viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model 
> each 
> > observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
> > confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
> > independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the 
> other? 
> > 
> > O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is 
> really 
> > real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
> > observers as being similar to himself? 
> > 
> > Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it 
> seems 
> > awfully lonely 
> > 
> > Edgar 
> > 
>
> I don't think you do get it, because solipsism is not the endpoint of 
> such a view. 
>
> An example of such a "reflection" is the conservation law of energy, 
> which turns out to be a consequence of our requirement for physics to 
> be invariant through time, ie a "reflection" of how we see the 
> world. See Noether's theorem. 
>
> To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical 
> property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive 
> the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard 
> of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that intersubjective 
> consistency necessarily implies the existence of some external 
> ontological reality. 
>
> Cheers 
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Liz,

Don't you understand the difference between a repeatable observation, which 
is the basis of science, and human interpretations of reality based on how 
human minds work?

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:12:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
>> empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science 
>> whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based 
>> upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously 
>> some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
>> how minds work...
>>
>>
>> So these consensus views are correct on everything  except space? I'm 
> sure I can think of some technology based on the assumption that space 
> exists. Actually It's hard to think of one that isn't.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread ghibbsa


On Saturday, March 8, 2014 8:49:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Mar 2014, at 02:39, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological 
>>> assumption.
>>>
>>> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
>>> from what we can observe. That is true.
>>>
>>
>> It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience 
>> indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but 
>> even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, 
>> our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic 
>> plus observation.
>>
>  
> I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like 
> the 'Mirror Pair'
>
>>
>>> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty 
>>> space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such 
>>> an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
>>> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
>>> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
>>> internal models of it.
>>>
>>  
>  
>  
> I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though 
> different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of 
> being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or 
> real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external 
> world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to 
> reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence 
> seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you 
> end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by 
> design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. 
>  
> Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that 
> relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. 
> If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of 
> density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of 
> what's real, that means we have to share that moment with 
> the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is 
> real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' 
> has to arrange like?  
>  
> It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. 
> That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a 
> proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as 
> physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we 
> are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's 
> very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point 
> dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model 
> to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter 
> because physical reality wasn't there. 
>
>
> Just to be precise, I never say that "physical reality is not there", only 
> that we have to explain it by an 1p-statistics on relative consistent 
> extensions, making comp (and Theaetetus) testable.
>
> Bruno
>
 
Sorry about that then. I thought you did say it right back at start of my 
foray into trying to understand computationalism over on FoAR 

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 08 Mar 2014, at 03:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Ghibbsa,

I agree with Bruno that physical reality is not primitively real. In  
my view the fundamental or primitive level of reality is purely  
computational in a dimensionless logico-mathematical space.


We agree on this indeed. But why using a notion of "computational  
space" which is not standard, and that you have not yet defined.


Is it just to avoid the "block many computations/may universe".

I have still no clue of your primitive ontological assumptions.

Bruno





The results of these computations are the information states of the  
universe, and so called physical reality is how minds model that  
information universe to make it more meaningful and easier to  
survive within...


In this view the reality of the physical world in which we think we  
exist is ITS INFORMATION ONLY, and all things are their information  
only. With practice it is possible to directly experience this by  
actually seeing that everything is actually its information  
components, and that only.


Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:39:20 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Liz,

No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological  
assumption.


There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by  
logic from what we can observe. That is true.


It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly.  
Neuroscience indicates that what actually happens is "something  
inside our brains" but even that is a hypothesis. The existence of  
matter, energy, space, time, our brains, other people and so on are  
all hypotheses deduced from logic plus observation.


I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts  
like the 'Mirror Pair'


But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty  
space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN  
such an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on  
continuous INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional  
relationships, and there is no evidence that empty space actually  
exists outside of our internal models of it.




I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point  
(though different between you) are saying something that contains  
some sense of being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as  
inherently substantial or real either, in fact I think worrying  
about the realness of the external world puts the cart before the  
horse. First dismiss internal value to reason I should think. Look  
for a way that takes that non-existence seriously. Firstly because  
it's harder that way, secondly because what you end up with, if you  
end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by design stop  
worrying about externals in any direct sense at all.


Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is  
that relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated  
than space. If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a  
major problem of density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang  
in fact. In terms of what's real, that means we have to share that  
moment with the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real,  
which moment then is real? In the end, isn't this more about  
preconceived notions of what 'real' has to arrange like?


It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively  
real. That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are  
left with is a proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional  
previous known as physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point  
in context of where we are, and what's around us. There's substance  
in terms of origins. But it's very easy to use such things out of  
context. For example Bruno at one point dismissed an argumnent I was  
making that drew on consistency of his model to translate to  
physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter because  
physical reality wasn't there.








--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 08 Mar 2014, at 02:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Liz,

No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological  
assumption.


There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by  
logic from what we can observe. That is true.


It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly.  
Neuroscience indicates that what actually happens is "something  
inside our brains" but even that is a hypothesis. The existence of  
matter, energy, space, time, our brains, other people and so on are  
all hypotheses deduced from logic plus observation.


I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts  
like the 'Mirror Pair'


But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty  
space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN  
such an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on  
continuous INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional  
relationships, and there is no evidence that empty space actually  
exists outside of our internal models of it.




I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point  
(though different between you) are saying something that contains  
some sense of being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as  
inherently substantial or real either, in fact I think worrying  
about the realness of the external world puts the cart before the  
horse. First dismiss internal value to reason I should think. Look  
for a way that takes that non-existence seriously. Firstly because  
it's harder that way, secondly because what you end up with, if you  
end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by design stop  
worrying about externals in any direct sense at all.


Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is  
that relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated  
than space. If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a  
major problem of density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang  
in fact. In terms of what's real, that means we have to share that  
moment with the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real,  
which moment then is real? In the end, isn't this more about  
preconceived notions of what 'real' has to arrange like?


It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively  
real. That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are  
left with is a proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional  
previous known as physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point  
in context of where we are, and what's around us. There's substance  
in terms of origins. But it's very easy to use such things out of  
context. For example Bruno at one point dismissed an argumnent I was  
making that drew on consistency of his model to translate to  
physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter because  
physical reality wasn't there.


Just to be precise, I never say that "physical reality is not there",  
only that we have to explain it by an 1p-statistics on relative  
consistent extensions, making comp (and Theaetetus) testable.


Bruno












--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of  
empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of  
science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex  
technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So  
there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which  
minds in general agree no matter how minds work...


But you do agree that such "physical universe out there" is not  
primitive, and arise from the "computational space".


Then if you use "computation" in the standard sense (Church thesis,  
etc.), then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of "  
primitively real universe" come from. Both time and space, and energy,  
comes from numbers indexical personal views. You might follow the  
current explanation or read the papers. It makes computationalism  
testable (and partially tested).


Bruno






Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is  
no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events  
and observers.


Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation  
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually  
observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In  
fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or  
energy, they are never observations of empty space itself.


Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between  
matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our  
brains, hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain  
cells.


That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at  
two different levels of description and saying one is wrong because  
I can talk at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot  
more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer screen.   
"I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty concrete and direct.   
On a physical model I could say "Photons from excited phosphor atoms  
are being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending  
neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing physicalism,  
"Information merging into my thought processes via preception,  
instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which  
pretty much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer  
screen."  A circle of explanation.


Brent



The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or  
more modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a  
hypothesis which we use to account for the apparent regularities in  
our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis  
that we can't observe its components directly because we don't  
observe any of reality directly, so on that basis you end up with  
solipsism.



--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each 
> viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each 
> observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
> confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
> independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the other?
> 
> O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is really 
> real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
> observers as being similar to himself?
> 
> Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it seems 
> awfully lonely
> 
> Edgar
> 

I don't think you do get it, because solipsism is not the endpoint of
such a view.

An example of such a "reflection" is the conservation law of energy,
which turns out to be a consequence of our requirement for physics to
be invariant through time, ie a "reflection" of how we see the
world. See Noether's theorem.

To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical
property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive
the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard
of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that intersubjective
consistency necessarily implies the existence of some external
ontological reality.

Cheers
-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of
> using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter
> how good a microscope or telescope we make.
>
> That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is
> just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space
> is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful
>

The point was that in Mach's time that wasn't the case. So at the time
there was no ontological difference, and I was making the comparison with
Mach at the time. You have to understand the context when you attempt to
answer someone else's points.

Atoms were, however, our best explanation at the time for various
observations, just as space is our best explanation for certain
observations now. And as even Brent has now agreed, we don't observe
anything directly - atoms, space-time or whatever, so the whole argument
that space doesn't exist because we don't observe it begs the question of
what we do actually observe.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 14:50, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>
>>
>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception,
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of
>> explanation.
>>
>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains
> (another hypothesis).
>
>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they
> don't exist."
>
> Then I agree with your point.
>

Good, so I assume you agree that Edgar isn't refuting the existence of
space by saying we never observe it directly, for the reasons stated (we
don't observe anything directly). Phew.

>
> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's
> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the
> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic
> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time
> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from
> there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and
> say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really*
> just a pattern of neurons firing in my brain."
>

Well, it's all hypothetical. This is fascinating subject to discuss
somewhere, but I was just trying to answer the original statement made by
Edgar - to show that the same logic would unravel all of physics, which is
why we generally have to make tacit assumptions.


>   And Bohr was right when he said that the classical world was
> *epistemologically* prior to the quantum world.
>

That would be because humans perceive the world in a classical manner, I
imagine?

>
> Brent
> You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
> got to make it out of.
>--- Robert Penn Warren
>
> --
> 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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it
> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some
> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how
> minds work...
>
>
> So these consensus views are correct on everything  except space? I'm
sure I can think of some technology based on the assumption that space
exists. Actually It's hard to think of one that isn't.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:13:39 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
> using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
> how good a microscope or telescope we make.
>

We can't. It's actually impossible to see an atom, because it's smaller 
than the smallest wavelength of visible light. We can see little 
bumps instead of the atom.  

>
>
> That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
> just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
> is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful
>

A particle collider gets to see subatomic particles, but only in 
extraordinary circumstances.

But atoms are almost entirely thin air, so where does that leave atoms on 
your theory? Sub atomic particles almost entirely thin air too. Such that 
Liz had that really good insight recently, which you picked up and 
complemented her on.

Where does this think air thing begin and end? 

>  
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.


On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:13:39 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
> using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
> how good a microscope or telescope we make.
>
> That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
> just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
> is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful
>
> Agree?
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>  
>>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 All, 

  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
 universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and 
 observers.

  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
 whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
 is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
 observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
 never observations of empty space itself.
  
>>>
>>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>>   
>>>
>>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>>> explanation.
>>>  
>>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
>> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
>> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
>> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
>> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence 
>> of space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for 
>> what happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
>> (another hypothesis).
>>
>>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they 
>> don't exist."
>>   
>>
>> Then I agree with your point.
>>
>> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's 
>> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the 
>> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic 
>> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time 
>> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from 
>> there. 
>>
>  
 
Yes and No. You do have to start from there if that's what your brain 
already sees. But that doesn't mean you have to base your theory on what 
your brain already sees. You could reason something like "if all of that in 
my head is hard coded what my brain sees, then what else is hard coded 
along with it, I haven't realized, but that would get built into my theory? 
" 
 
If you reasoned like that, you could have the idea that "I can build a 
rules based method approach to starting my theory that absolutely minimizes 
the dependencies on that shit in my head" 

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Brent,

But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
how good a microscope or telescope we make.

That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful

Agree?

Edgar


On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>  
>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of 
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what 
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
> (another hypothesis).
>
>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they 
> don't exist."
>   
>
> Then I agree with your point.
>
> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's 
> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the 
> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic 
> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time 
> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from 
> there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and 
> say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* 
> just a pattern of neurons firing in my brain."  And Bohr was right when he 
> said that the classical world was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum 
> world.
>
> Brent
> You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
> got to make it out of. 
>--- Robert Penn Warren
>  

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Ghibbsa,

I agree with Bruno that physical reality is not primitively real. In my 
view the fundamental or primitive level of reality is purely computational 
in a dimensionless logico-mathematical space. 

The results of these computations are the information states of the 
universe, and so called physical reality is how minds model that 
information universe to make it more meaningful and easier to survive 
within...

In this view the reality of the physical world in which we think we exist 
is ITS INFORMATION ONLY, and all things are their information only. With 
practice it is possible to directly experience this by actually seeing that 
everything is actually its information components, and that only.

Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:39:20 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological 
>>> assumption.
>>>
>>> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
>>> from what we can observe. That is true.
>>>
>>
>> It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience 
>> indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but 
>> even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, 
>> our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic 
>> plus observation.
>>
>  
> I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like 
> the 'Mirror Pair'
>
>>
>>> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty 
>>> space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such 
>>> an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
>>> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
>>> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
>>> internal models of it.
>>>
>>  
>  
>  
> I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though 
> different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of 
> being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or 
> real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external 
> world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to 
> reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence 
> seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you 
> end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by 
> design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. 
>  
> Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that 
> relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. 
> If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of 
> density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of 
> what's real, that means we have to share that moment with 
> the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is 
> real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' 
> has to arrange like?  
>  
> It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. 
> That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a 
> proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as 
> physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we 
> are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's 
> very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point 
> dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model 
> to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter 
> because physical reality wasn't there. 
>  
>
>>
>>>  
>>
>  
>
>>  
>>
>>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Brent,

I agree that we can use our OBSERVATIONS of the dimensional relationships 
of particulate events to construct a meaningful THEORY of space. Newton did 
it. But Einstein found that it really didn't quite work out and came up 
with a new theory. But now we know that doesn't quite work out either and 
we need a new theory that unifies QT and GR and resolves quantum paradox.

So now I suggest a new THEORY to address these problems. So NO, I am NOT 
confusing observation and theory. I'm going back to the actual ontological 
nature of the actual observations and working from there towards a new 
theory of dimensional space.

And I claim that though the OBSERVATIONS are empirical and repeatable, that 
the THEORY of space is a logico-mathematical construct or edifice, rather 
than anything physical.

Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:37:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/7/2014 4:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> >> Brent, 
> >> 
> >> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
> empirical 
> >> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> >> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon 
> it 
> >> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> >> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
> how 
> >> minds work... 
> > How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations 
> > agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are 
> > more less similar to each other? 
>
> And looking at different things?  If we're similar to each other, then 
> similarity of 
> observation implies similarity of the observed. But I think Edgar is 
> confounding 
> "observations" with "theories", or he's not allowing for the different 
> degrees in which 
> theories contribute to observations.  We're very different from Nagel's 
> bat, so we don't 
> perceive the elasticity to objects with our vision as a bat does with 
> sonar.  But we both 
> form a three dimensional model of space. 
>
> Brent 
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Liz,

But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
how good a microscope or telescope we make.

That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
is impossible with ANY observational device

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:46:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb > wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>
>> My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of 
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what 
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
> (another hypothesis).
>
> His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't 
> exist."
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread meekerdb


On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>>
wrote:

All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
universal
fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.

Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
whatsoever.
We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is 
interactions
between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE
interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never 
observations of
empty space itself.


Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and
energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
hypothetically the
reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.


That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
different
levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the 
other. The
interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation 
of words
on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty 
concrete and
direct.  On a physical model I could say "Photons from excited phosphor 
atoms are
being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending neural 
signals into my
brain."  Or eschewing physicalism, "Information merging into my thought 
processes
via preception, instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer 
screen"."...which
pretty much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A 
circle of
explanation.

My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the existence of space. 
He argued that we never observe space directly, and goes on to suggest that therefore we 
can't assume it exists. I merely pointed out that the same logic applies to all 
observations, and therefore we can't assume /*from observation*/ that anything exists. 
The existence of space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for 
what happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains (another 
hypothesis).


His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't 
exist."


Then I agree with your point.

But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's certainly not brain 
functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the world that's hardwired into us by 
evolution such that we see macroscopic objects that have definite positions and we 
directly experience time lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to 
start from there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and 
say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* just a pattern 
of neurons firing in my brain."  And Bohr was right when he said that the classical world 
was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum world.


Brent
You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
got to make it out of.
   --- Robert Penn Warren

--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Russell,

Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each 
viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each 
observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the other?

O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is really 
real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
observers as being similar to himself?

Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it seems 
awfully lonely

Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:36:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
> > similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get 
> different 
> > answers 
> > 
> > Edgar 
>
> Perhaps the "similar thing" is a mere reflection of the observers 
> observing. 
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological 
>> assumption.
>>
>> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
>> from what we can observe. That is true.
>>
>
> It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience 
> indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but 
> even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, 
> our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic 
> plus observation.
>

I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like 
the 'Mirror Pair'

>
>> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space 
>> because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an 
>> empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
>> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
>> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
>> internal models of it.
>>
>  

I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though 
different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of 
being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or 
real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external 
world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to 
reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence 
seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you 
end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by 
design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. 

Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that 
relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. 
If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of 
density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of 
what's real, that means we have to share that moment with 
the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is 
real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' 
has to arrange like?  

It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. 
That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a 
proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as 
physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we 
are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's 
very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point 
dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model 
to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter 
because physical reality wasn't there. 

>
>>  
>

>  
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread meekerdb


On 3/7/2014 4:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it
would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some
actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how
minds work...

How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations
agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are
more less similar to each other?


And looking at different things?  If we're similar to each other, then similarity of 
observation implies similarity of the observed. But I think Edgar is confounding 
"observations" with "theories", or he's not allowing for the different degrees in which 
theories contribute to observations.  We're very different from Nagel's bat, so we don't 
perceive the elasticity to objects with our vision as a bat does with sonar.  But we both 
form a three dimensional model of space.


Brent

--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 All,

 An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
 universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and 
 observers.

 Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
 whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
 is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
 observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
 never observations of empty space itself.

>>>
>>> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
>>> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>>
>>
>> There are interactions inside our brains, but that doesn't mean that 
>> those interactions are literally our observations. It's not a fact, it's an 
>> assumption, and one which clearly has problems once you scratch beneath the 
>> surface.
>>
>
> Yes, but the point is that there's a hierarchy of assumptions here. I was 
> just pointing to the next level down. Going deeper doesn't invalidate 
> Edgar's point any more than the fact of the first level does.
>

Going deeper invalidates both your points, because although observations of 
matter and energy and observations of interactions inside our brain can 
both be doubted, the fact that we observe something and make some sense of 
it cannot be doubted. If we start from there - from sense, then everything 
else falls into place.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological
> assumption.
>
> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic
> from what we can observe. That is true.
>

It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience
indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but
even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time,
our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic
plus observation.

>
> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space
> because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an
> empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous
> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and
> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our
> internal models of it.
>
> Or that anything else does. Yes, that's correct, my point was that you
can't single out space for this treatment.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>
>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>
>
> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two
> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk
> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical
> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer
> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say
> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in
> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing
> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception,
> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty
> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of
> explanation.
>
> My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the
existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and
goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely
pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore
we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of
space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what
happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains
(another hypothesis).

His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't
exist."

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
> similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different 
> answers
> 
> Edgar

Perhaps the "similar thing" is a mere reflection of the observers observing.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Russell,

Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different 
answers

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:23:46 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
> empirical 
> > observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> > accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon 
> it 
> > would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> > actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
> how 
> > minds work... 
>
> How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations 
> agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are 
> more less similar to each other? 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
> 
> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
> minds work...

How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations
agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are
more less similar to each other?

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Liz,

No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological assumption.

There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
from what we can observe. That is true.

But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space 
because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an 
empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
internal models of it.

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:08:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to 
>> discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational 
>> reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.
>>
>> But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. 
>> When you do you don't get solipsism.
>>
>> If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN 
>> MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply 
>> to my theories but to all science
>>
>
> That's right, that's my point. That's why we can't just say "we never 
> directly observe X" to invalidate any of our existing hypotheses. We make 
> ontological assumptions - you can't just start by saying THIS particular 
> fact isn't true because we have made a hypothesis about it, because if we 
> do that, by contagion we have to doubt all of our hypotheses.
>
> Hence you can't start from the basis that...
>
> "Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. 
> We NEVER observe such an empty space. "
>
> ...without casting doubt on all our hypotheses based on observations.
>
> Instead you will have to find some other reason to show that space doesn't 
> exist (assuming it doesn't).
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
minds work...

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All, 
>>
>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>  
>
>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>   
>
> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
> explanation.
>
> Brent
>
>   
>  The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>
>  
>  -- 
> 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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to
> discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational
> reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.
>
> But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact.
> When you do you don't get solipsism.
>
> If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN
> MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply
> to my theories but to all science
>

That's right, that's my point. That's why we can't just say "we never
directly observe X" to invalidate any of our existing hypotheses. We make
ontological assumptions - you can't just start by saying THIS particular
fact isn't true because we have made a hypothesis about it, because if we
do that, by contagion we have to doubt all of our hypotheses.

Hence you can't start from the basis that...

"Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever.
We NEVER observe such an empty space. "

...without casting doubt on all our hypotheses based on observations.

Instead you will have to find some other reason to show that space doesn't
exist (assuming it doesn't).

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread meekerdb


On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>> wrote:

All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
universal fixed
pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.

Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
whatsoever. We
NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions 
between
particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of
particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space 
itself.


Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and energy, 
either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of 
nerve signals by our brain cells.


That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two different levels of 
description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the other.  The interactions 
inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer 
screen. "I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty concrete and direct. On a physical 
model I could say "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores 
in my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing physicalism, 
"Information merging into my thought processes via preception, instantiates the thought 
"I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty much brings me back to just "I'm 
observing a computer screen."  A circle of explanation.


Brent



The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more modernly, 
mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we use to account for the 
apparent regularities in our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis 
that we can't observe its components directly because we don't observe any of reality 
directly, so on that basis you end up with solipsism.



--
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>
>>
>> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter
>> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>
>
> There are interactions inside our brains, but that doesn't mean that those
> interactions are literally our observations. It's not a fact, it's an
> assumption, and one which clearly has problems once you scratch beneath the
> surface.
>

Yes, but the point is that there's a hierarchy of assumptions here. I was
just pointing to the next level down. Going deeper doesn't invalidate
Edgar's point any more than the fact of the first level does.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:51:26 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational 
> OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually compute 
> the evolving state of the universe. This guarantees my definition is 
> CORRECT, and it becomes a matter of determining what the actual necessary 
> computations are. And I've given a number of thoughts about that...
>

Which is superior at the same time you state it. But then you carry on as 
you were before, defining all reality as this perfect sphere of 
consistency. Hollow it out with a plastic toothpick. Carefully remove a 
moist orb of p-time prepare earlier on the clay wheel. Nature on the table 
wishing she was under it instead of your knife. 

Well meant silliness mainly - but seriously, howtare you ASKING Nature in a 
flow chart like that?

> You define your comp THEORETICALLY and then insist that nature must 
> conform to your theory, apparently without even asking nature if it does or 
> not because you never say anything about physics. You only discuss math and 
> philosophy
>

Gotta keep the p-time sequence straight Edgar. How old is a handsome rascal 
likT you? The pic's 10+ years ago, so I'd say early 70's. And when did your 
philosophical journey begin? While still a minor - a boy prodigy no less. 
And what are the first three insights that infected you -confidence so 
positively, commitment too. Life long dedication true to say. After all 
here you are 60 odd years later. 

Step three of the thousand mile journey was p-time wasn't it. So 60 year 
p-time, p now for Platinum too. Just a boy - gifted mind you - a prodigy - 
but p-time was given birth to bya boy. The other two where 
synrchronization to the power of c, and the perfect logical structure. 

Point of all this being. Was there a definition of computation back then? 
And alsohand on heart can you really lay claim to 'asking' Nature how 
she does tthing? You might have asked but it's what you are willing to do 
to get Nature's answer that does all the heavy lifting. 

I don't know. You had these insights right at the start and you've kept 
them all the way through 60 years of apparently listening seriously for an 
answer. I suppose it's a rare case of two great minds, you and Nature, 
thinking alike.

Don't worry by the way I spread the slime around and don't complain when 
slime comes around. The above kind of reminds me of David Deutsch's even 
greater fortune. Everything he already thought was basically true turned 
out true. Not just scientific hunches; EVERYTHING. Every narrative, every 
prejudice about the West. All the philosophical stuff. All the self serving 
stuff too. Everything right, and being a rational UKC, with memes in rude 
health, David Deutsch saw no problem in that, saw no need to reflect extra 
careful, or necessarily at all. IMHO.

>
>  
> This is a big big difference.
>

Oh contraire olde sausage; no difference at all 

>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>>
>> In which theory?
>>
>> In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the 
>> "actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of emptiness.
>>
>> In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0), 
>> s(s(0))), ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient fiction 
>> to sum up infinities of arithmetical relation below our substitution level, 
>> making the sharing of our most probable computations sharable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>> Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can 
>> observe is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
>> relationships mandated by conservation laws.
>>
>> But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, 
>>
>>
>>
>> Define "occur".
>>
>>
>>
>> and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of 
>> space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from 
>> particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur 
>> within.
>>
>> So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
>> by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. 
>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.
>>
>>
>> Now that looks like computationalism, except

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>
> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>

There are interactions inside our brains, but that doesn't mean that those 
interactions are literally our observations. It's not a fact, it's an 
assumption, and one which clearly has problems once you scratch beneath the 
surface.
 

>
> The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>

The assumption that it leads to solipsism is solipsistic. If the universe 
is a sensory experience, then there is no escaping our unity with it, in 
spite of local obstructions. If we can tell ourselves objectively what is 
and what is not solipsistic, then we are counting on some fundamentally 
trustworthy quality of our own reasoning and intuition. 

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

Liz,

You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to 
discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational 
reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.

But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. 
When you do you don't get solipsism.

If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN 
MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply 
to my theories but to all science

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>
> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>
> The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All,
>
> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>
> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
> never observations of empty space itself.
>

Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter
and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.

The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more
modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we
use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't
throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components
directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis
you end up with solipsism.

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

On Friday, March 7, 2014 12:21:15 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>
> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
> never observations of empty space itself.
>
> Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe 
> is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
> relationships mandated by conservation laws.
>
> But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, and 
> they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of space 
> based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from 
> particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur 
> within.
>
> So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
> by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. It is a 
> computational structure rather than a physical structure.
>
> This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at 
> the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a 
> logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, 
> and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations 
> rather than a pre-existing background to them...
>
>
> Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM 
> information computations encoding particulate interactions we have the key 
> to resolving all quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the 
> source of Quantum randomness.
>
>
> But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to 
> tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would 
> be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take up the 
> challenge!
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>

Fire away baby. there's always something to agree with in your thinking. 
For example I agree the present moment reflects an underlying 
physical dynamic and there's a fundamental sense in which everything local 
to me is 'processed' in synch to myself and one of the ways that stays in 
line is via the time dimension an the concept of now. 

I just don't see a way to make things more concrete than that. In your 
reasoning. Not mine obviously. My theories near complete, and I've already 
translated it to an economic/social discovery/correction method. The point 
being to see it run, because large predictations are made for how things 
will go. My confidence/laziness is wavering slightly at the edge of the 
pool on this.

What was the first phase went on going on a long time, and it's left me 
somewhat diverged from some of the alphamale qualities major going at it 
commercially seems to see as prime. I used to be the beefy prosperous 
looking guy saying "Come on I'm not hearing it. Say it with conviction, 
commitment and passion. Say it, let me hear you say I AM A TIGER" 
Now I'm the woody allen type repeating ""I am? a Tiger?"

-- 
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.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

2014-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Bruno,

I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational  
OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually  
compute


But this is what I ask you to define. What do you mean by "compute"?




the evolving state of the universe.


With how many decimals?






This guarantees my definition is CORRECT,


Vacuously correct, as you do not provide a definition, nor do you  
relate what you mean to the standard definition.





and it becomes a matter of determining what the actual necessary  
computations are. And I've given a number of thoughts about that...


You define your comp THEORETICALLY and then insist that nature must  
conform to your theory, apparently without even asking nature if it  
does or not because you never say anything about physics. You only  
discuss math and philosophy


This is a big big difference.


I reason from a weak hypothesis, which you have accepted, and only  
show the consequences.
Why not use your tehory to find a flaw in the reasoning, if you dion't  
accept the consequence. Or that might help you to add in  
"computational" what you need to escape the conquences. But if you  
want to save a "unique physical reality", you will need to add many  
actual infinities in your hypotheses.


Bruno






Edgar




On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is  
no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events  
and observers.


In which theory?

In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the  
"actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of  
emptiness.


In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0),  
s(s(0))), ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient  
fiction to sum up infinities of arithmetical relation below our  
substitution level, making the sharing of our most probable  
computations sharable.







Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation  
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually  
observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In  
fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or  
energy, they are never observations of empty space itself.


Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can  
observe is particulate interactions which have what we call  
dimensional relationships mandated by conservation laws.


But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR,



Define "occur".



and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion  
of space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to  
EMERGE from particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as  
something they occur within.


So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules  
imposed by the conservation laws that govern particulate  
interactions.


OK.




It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.


Now that looks like computationalism, except you still did not say  
if you use "computational" in the standrad sense of Turing, Post,  
Church, Kleene, or ... in which sense?


If you use it in the standard sense, automatically you assume some  
amount of arithmetical realism, and you get the "ontology" on a  
plateau, as the sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic (a very tiny  
part of the whole arithmetical reality) provides a computational  
space.


Of course, that arithmetical reality has nothing to do with time,  
space, and matter a priori, and is of the type "platonic out of time  
immaterial ideas", but with comp this structure admits a description  
in terms of "block universal machine landscape".








This again is another strong indication that everything really  
occurs at the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract  
information in a logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality  
and prior to physicality,



It it is prior physicality, it is prior to time.




and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these  
computations rather than a pre-existing background to them...


Dimensionality, and time.

Those things does not occur, they are only interpreted as such by  
the universal numbers.






Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM  
information computations


if only we could knew what you mean by that.



encoding particulate interactions we have the key to resolving all  
quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the source of  
Quantum randomness.


You are quick, but computationalism indeed solves QM paradoxes, in  
the Everett "multi" way, as far as it extends Everett properly on  
arithmetic, and this is testable, and already partially tested.







But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they  
afraid to tackle it? P

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.