Dear Hal and Bruno,

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure



Le 05-juin-05, à 05:53, Hal Finney a écrit :
snip
That is the sense in which I say that observer-moments are primary;
they are the most fundamental experience we have of the world.
Everything else is only a theory which is built upon the raw existence
of observer-moments.
[BM]
All right. I guess you agree that this is compatible with the fact that such a theory, built upon the raw existence of OMs, could infer the existence of more primitive objects, could explain how the "raw existence of OM" emerges from those more primitive objects and explain also how the theory of those more primitive objects emerge from the (only apparently raw, now) observer moments. All this without being circular. OK?

Could you explain to us how it is necessary that sets of Observer Moments must be "well founded" such that properties like "such a theory, built upon the raw existence of OMs, could infer the existence of more primitive objects" and "All this without being circular."? Why do we insist on having an indivisible Atom from which All is constructable? Is it not possible that the distinctions (read properties!) between one OM and another are merely those that they do not have in common? Instead of the idea of an Atom floating in the Void, let us consider the idea of Indra's Net:

http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html

***
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE
THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977
***
I am suggesting that these "jewels" give us an excellent way to think of OMs. If we are to allow for a value K {ranging from 0 to 1} to represent the degree to which one "jewel" "reflects" or "is similar to" or "implies", it seems that we get a very neat way to span a whole lot of logics and math with a simple picture. And, to top it off, we have a way to deal with infinite regress and circularity without paradox. (BTW, this is what Non-Well founded set theory is trying to explain!)

Stephen

PS, for more info on Indra''s net see: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew25326.htm and on its relation to NWF sets: http://dialog.net:85/homepage/autobook.5/refautol.pdf

Reply via email to