Hi Godfrey, Bruno

 The "I" that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and coincides with the physical system that the "I" inhabits. Thus the world (the slice of the plenitude that we can observe) is anthropically constrained by the "I."

[GK]
 So the "I" is (1) a logical system (2) a physical system inhabited (1) and (3) the set of anthropic constraints which delimits
 the whole of the (non-"I") universe (?) where (I am guessing) (1) and (2) find themselves! Is this what you are saying?

[GL]
I am sorry I was sloppy in my explanation. Let me try to be clearer. "I" is the kernel of consciousness. It does not include memories which are different for everyone and change as a person ages. I agree with you that since "I" is based on a logical system it must follow Goedel's theorem, perhaps at the border between incompleteness and inconsistency. It seems that is precisely what consciousness "feels" like.

I am not saying that "I" is a physical system or is the world. Rather that the world that "I" perceive is anthropically constrained by the "I" and that the physical laws have the same limitations as the "I" including the incompleteness/inconsistency requirement.

[GK]
 Hold on there! If all physics is reducible to "a logical system" why would there need be physics at all ? Why would you have
 to be the one answering Enstein's quandary? Wouldn't his "I", being the same as yours be able to answer himself?
 In other words: maybe your explanation of knowledge is incapable of explaining... ignorance?

I think that a TOE would have to include an explanation of consciousness. In explaining the world we'll have to explain ourselves.

[GL]
 Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers differ in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it does not exist when observers operate according to different but entirely consistent fundamental logics. In fact, such observers would have a lot of difficulty communicating since their worlds would be different slices of the plenitude.

[GK]
 the "strangeness" of relativistic physics
 is that observers can actually compare and agree on their observations even when they have entirely different deployments
 in their different frames of reference!

[GL]
Before relativity, one might have argued that different observers experienced different laws of physics. For example, I might experience a gravitational field while you may experience an acceleration. Relativity is a set of far ranging laws that unified under the same umbrella what were deemed smaller ranging laws experienced by different observers. I am saying exactly the same thing. Different frames of reference will generate different perceived laws. Since the frames of reference I am discussing include logical systems, the perceived worlds will be different.

[GL]
Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers differ in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it does not exist when observers operate according to different but entirely consistent fundamental logics. In fact, such observers would have a lot of difficulty communicating since their worlds would be different slices of the plenitude.
[BM]
I would say, almost like a physicalist, that "objective reality" is what is common to all frame of reference. I would even say that "the physical laws" are exactly what is true in all observer-moment, relative state/worlds, etc.

[GL]
Einstein has demonstrated that under different state of motion and acceleration the old objective reality breaks down and a new objective reality must take its place. Objective reality depends on the range of the laws. Newton's laws are not true in all frame of reference in various kinds of motion, but Relativity provides unified laws that cover all frames of reference that differ according to their motion and their acceleration.  QT/MWI offers a different kind of relativism. Shannon offers yet another kind of relativism. Why not just go all the way - no more objective reality. Each "I" has his own reality. If your accept this as a law then we have objective reality. :-)

[BM]
I could challenge you for giving me two entirely consistent logics having nothing in common, and sufficiently rich to keep natural numbers (but perhaps you don't put weight on arithmetical truth, in which case I could imagine some solution in a non comp framework)

[GL
I am not sure what you mean by your statement in parenthesis. Bruno, I am not an expert in logic. Perhaps you can help. Is it possible that  "I" (and the anthropically derived world) may include all the (logical) systems "I" can imagine, and therefore it would be impossible for "I" to provide you with a system that "I" cannot imagine? So it is impossible for us to see beyond our slice of the plenitude.

George

Reply via email to