Colin Hales wrote:
So when I said that a rocket motor didn't fire last March because
corrosion products in the IRFNA pickup tube clogged the line, all those people who thought this was an explanation were simply fooled.

No. I am being very specific about the words. When I say explanation I mean
WHY (underlying causal necessity) and not WHAT. In common language based on
a previous description (a scientific law), an 'explanation' can be
formulated. In this context, however, that is not what I mean.

Certainly fundamental physics is mathematical description and causal
relations are reduced to mathematical descriptions like "time-like
separated". But I don't see that as a disadvantage.

This is an unfounded ascription: That the physics - the mathematical
description is somehow directly invoked. This ascription maps a description
(in the form of a mathematical generalisation) onto an explanation. Without
justification. The universe behaving 'as if' the law is driving causality
does not justify any position that it is doing so.

There is NOTHING WRONG with the mathematical law! I am not proposing to
throw out anything. It works. Read the quote at the bottom of the last
email. I am saying that 50% of scientific characterisations of the natural
world is simply missing.

Do you propose to provide "real causal necessities"?

YES. Well I don't. Others do, though. Jobs already started. A small group of
scientists around the world are already doing it. The problem is a) They
don't realise they are working on explanatory models, not descriptive models
and b) They don't understand the relationship of their work to phenomenal

I didn't say reality was accessed.  I said we create models of reality.
We only have access to the model. We're never sure about the "reality".

Not so. An assumption. The underlying reality is accessible. Very difficult,
very different but doable. You just haven't seen how its done. When you
understand what causally necessitates phenomenality then phenomenality acts
as evidence for explanatory models (phenomenality itself) and descriptive
models (appearance provided by phenomenality). The same universe that
necessitates that F = MA also necessitates phenomenality. Unless you believe
phenomenality projected in by a god or through some other dualistic
framework. This latter is just another untestable theory. Better to believe
in the great galactic pumpkin.

When you say "I think there are objective models of reality" you are
making a very big assumption:

That's not an assumption.  It's just an observation.  We have the germ
theory of disease, the Newtonian model of the solar system, the Standard
Model of elementary particles, the solid object model of tables and


I'm not *assuming* these models describe reality.  I only observe that


work and that's the best evidence we can hope for.  I don't pretend that


can access what's "really real".  But the fact that our models make
successful predictions beyond what was used to construct them makes them more than tautologies.

You misunderstand. 'Tautology' is not being perjorative! It's simply the
natural structure of all correct descriptive laws correlating phenomenal
artefacts. Also you assume that the evidentiary trail ends with the
traditional view. Not so! See above.

You are

No I am NOT.  Of course all experience is by subjects.  All models
must be built form what we have.  Do you propose some mystical
access independent of subjective experience?

NO. Read what I have said above. Nothing mystical at all. Very real. Any
model for causal necessity must a) predict phenomenality and b) the natural
world's appearance appearance within it using a brain that results in us
concluding F = MA for example. It's all quite consistent. You just have to
get over all the prejudicial training.

Does that help?


Oh well.... :-)

These issues only arise when you try and apply scientific method to the
phenomenality responsible for observation. You find you have to modify
science, not modify/create theorems within science. Science is behaving
pathologically at this boundary condition and I'm not going to stop until
someone else gets it. Once you have worked out what the revised model for
science actually is then it all falls into place. It's a seamless upgrade,
by the way.

So what's the revised model?  Is it a model of reality?

Yes. But once again it too only a MODEL. There are 2 sets of models that
apply equally. Both empirically supported by phenomenality. There is an
entire class of solutions to the 'underlying physics' based on structured
noise. I have been able to show how phenomenality arises in the entire
class. Recently I formulated the mathematical basis for it, adding to the
ontological version for those comfy with particle-like physics.

For that reason I have more confidence that the structured noise models are
actually involved in some way. Future work will help formulate more
empirical testing in brain material. It makes predictions of brain matter.

I don't know why folks are so up tight. We lose nothing by approaching
things this way. We gain a whole lot by merely altering our mindset. I'm
simply retrofitting context into a paradigm shift that's already happened!


I'm not up tight - but I'm a little irritated that you keep asserting that
you've seen the whole picture and the rest of us only see half and that you've
worked out the true way - BUT you don't say what it is and you don't offer any
evidence beyond mere assertion.

Brent Meeker

Reply via email to