On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:18:12PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/8/2014 8:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:05:44PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Then why claim that there is an external ontological reality at all,
if all you're banging on about is intersubjective consistency?
I do route for solipsism, it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it. Although,
having listened to an ebook on the subject by Alfred Benei, I'm forced to
say that if his deduction that even self is artificial and a construct of a
consciousness that is the only thing we are sure about, then it is
On 08 Apr 2014, at 14:36, aeternadei D. wrote:
I do route for solipsism, it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.
Although, having listened to an ebook on the subject by Alfred
Benei, I'm forced to say that if his deduction that even self is
artificial and a construct of a consciousness
On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, aeternadei D. wrote:
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
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
An empty space within which events occur does not exist.
The idea that empty space doesn't exist is entirely consistent with Quantum
Mechanics, it says that so called empty space is really a sea of virtual
particles that
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, aeternadei D. wrote:
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
On 4/8/2014 5:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:21:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/8/2014 5:36 AM, aeternadei D. wrote:
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
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:05:44PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Then why claim that there is an external ontological reality at all,
if all you're banging on about is intersubjective consistency? It
doesn't buy you anything, except unanswerable questions.
It's like Bruno's 'comp', it's a model
On 4/8/2014 8:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:05:44PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Then why claim that there is an external ontological reality at all,
if all you're banging on about is intersubjective consistency? It
doesn't buy you anything, except unanswerable questions.
On 10 March 2014 17:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 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.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:03:30PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 17:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 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
On 10 March 2014 22:51, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Well my answer to solipsism is generally along the lines of worlds
that have evolved from simpler beginnings will have much higher
measure than worlds in which we pop out of the air fully formed
(Boltzmann brain like).
On 09 Mar 2014, at 21:46, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen 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.
Nice to see you treat it this way.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Mar 2014, at 21:46, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Russell,
Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally
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
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
On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen 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
On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
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
On 10 March 2014 10:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen 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
On 3/9/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 10:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Russell,
Yes, but
On 10 March 2014 10:49, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
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
On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 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
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 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
On 10 March 2014 16:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective
consistency is
not
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:55:27PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 16:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
But my point remains, at this
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
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 edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological
assumption.
There are some things we don't
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
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 8:49:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2014, at 02:39, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, you are referring to two
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 edga...@att.net
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,
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
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
On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish 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
On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
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
On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish 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
On 3/8/2014 9:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Yes. See Noether's
On 9 March 2014 19:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 9:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Yes. See Noether's theorem,
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
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:21:15 AM UTC-5, 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.
I agree.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any
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
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
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
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen 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.
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
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: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?
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
On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
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.
On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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
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
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
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.
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
On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen 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
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which
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
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: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
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
On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
All,
An empty space
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On 8 March 2014 14:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which
On 8 March 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
