--- On Sat, 4/10/10, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: chazwin <[email protected]> > Subject: [epistemology 11275] Re: Re-Write and Summary of Earlier Post--- > Free Will as Quintessential to Physics > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, April 10, 2010, 10:51 AM > > > On Apr 9, 6:02 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > --- On Fri, 4/9/10, chazwin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: chazwin <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [epistemology 11273] Re: Re-Write and > Summary of Earlier Post--- Free Will as Quintessential to > Physics > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 5:06 PM > > > > > Whatever reality is, our understanding of it has > to account > > > for the > > > succession of events. > > > Any claim to freedom of the will forms a > contradiction of > > > the notion > > > of reality in which the necessity of the > succession of > > > events exists. > > > ANy quintessential quality is a god of the gaps > to fill any > > > thing we > > > can't account for. That does not mean that any > inference > > > can be drawn > > > from what is nothing more that a metaphysical > concept. Why > > > should we > > > not simply except that consciousness is a > property of > > > matter and > > > energy in time and space which exists in > particular > > > circumstances? > > > > =============== > > G: > > For the very simple reason that there ain't no sich > animal as "matter" > > in physics and energy is an abstract coefficient void > of phenomenal > > sense and used only to simplify abstract mathematical > expressions > > coordinating observable events. > > > > Georges. > > ============= > > That might be very true from a phenomenological > perspective, but > whether of not any othe these things transgress our > experiential world > they are of practical significance, and are pragmatic in > application. > To add a fifth, quintessential 'element', does tow things; > 1) reifies > the first 4, which you have said of at least one that there > aint no > such thing, and 2) by being additive, by definition commits > the same > fraud as the first 4. > Whilst I agree that concepts such as time, space, matter > and energy > are only devices by which we model the world, adding a > fifth which > fails to conform to the practical necessity of the first 4 > is just > mystical nonesense. ============ G: Current physics boils down to creating abstract models coordinating aware, observable events. In other terms its ultimate foundation is awareness. It's not my fault, I did not invent it. I present Einstein's Physical Reality in the "NATURAL MODEL" http://findgeorges.com/CORE/B_NATURAL_VIEW/b1_natural_model.html However, as EInstein was more interested in physics than in philosophy, he presented as granted certain essential constructs, which I attempt to found in "TIME AWARENEhttp://findgeorges.com/CORE/A_FOUNDATIONS/a1_time_awareness_and_events.htmlSS AND EVENTS" and in "STRUCTURES OF MIND" http://findgeorges.com/CORE/A_FOUNDATIONS/a2_structures_of_mind.html Some of these constructs are: -"physical body"; -CD (Continuum/Discreteness) polarity with its foundational primacy of continuum, reducible to awareness intuited as continuous background of discrete perceptual events and to intuitive continuous time as background of discrete clocks. -TimeSpace. In the light of the above one seems to have three options: 1.Accept Einstein's Physical Reality; accept awareness as its ultimate foundation; renounce to explain it, accepting that since Newton's "hipotheses non fingo" science restricts itself to coordinating aware observable events and does not explain anything. 2.Scrap the contemporary physics and create an alternative one founded in objects, things, constructs, etc. of the "world out there" and denying the foundational role of the awareness. 3.Go beyond physics and create such mataphysical view of reality as one pleases. As I'm about to include the above links in a book: "SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT TOME I Einstein's Physical Reality and Relativistic Dialectic" I would much appreciate your comments. Georges =========== -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
