On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: > > What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like any > other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? > > > I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful laws, > not relying to actual infinities or magic. > > Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict such > deterministic law. >
That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions", "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-constellation. > > > I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help > of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was > different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the > explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena > partially absorbed/understood as parts of a "PHYSICAL World". > It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind > (consciousness???) > > > OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery of the > universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable sense) makes > possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and capable of > self-transformation, of those machines. > Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of self-transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex, but they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True beauty, whether in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece, introduces an experience which is literally unimaginable before it appears. It is not self-transformation, but revelation of simple, iconic presentations which relate to nothing but their own brand of pleasure, and to the history of all beauty and pleasure. It has not exterior truth which it mediates for, as we have proved with commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product that has nothing to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for whatever we attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation. Craig > > You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would impose > an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress. > > Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and this is > mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art to accept it > and move on. > That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to see > how wrong they were. > > François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was sincerely > disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model showing the > Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are shown true. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > <stat...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: >> >>> Allegedly Stathis wrote: >>> *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be >>> different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is >>> a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the >>> brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural >>> processes.* >>> >>> I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently >>> known/knowable. >>> Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is "all we can have"? The >>> demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and >>> whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on >>> indeed. Explained by physics? >>> I consider "physix" the ingenious explanation of the figments we >>> perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from >>> time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. >>> Agnostically yours >>> John Mikes >>> >> >> It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, >> but with any physics. >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > 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/groups/opt_out.
