Hi George,
Thanks for the clarifications. Let me see if I understand you better.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-----Original Message-----
From: George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[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.
[GK]
That is lovely! That may be how your consciousness feels: mine feels
like something at the border between dazed and
confused ;-) Now, seriously, I wish I was as sure as you that there is
such kernel once you strip away all the memories.
(Does this include biological memories, by the way? If so which ones?)
But just in any case: do you have an idea on how to formalize that
logical system or in any way, explicate it?
[GL]
>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]
No problem here though I am trying to understand you as saying that it
is the existence of such a logical kernel of
consciousness that places anthropical constraints on physical laws.
The way people usually refer to anthropic constraints
is as obvious restictions on observation not on the laws! In fact the
copernician view is that our *observations* are just
as accidental as we believe ouselves to be. I hope you understand that
your using "anthropic constraint" in a very
oblique way...
[GL]
>I think that a TOE would have to include an explanation of
consciousness. In explaining the world we'll have to explain
> ourselves.
[GK]
I surely agree with you that this would be desirable but constraining
physics on having to evolve consciousness
deterministically is not an explanation, in my book. Accidents happen
after all.
[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.
[GK]
I think you wrong in what you say above. Relativity did not change
your experience of gravity or acceleration: it changed
the way you interpret it. The Equivalence Principle is just as valid
within Newtonian gravity as in GR (and Carton showed
that the same is the case for the Principle of Covariance). Einstein's
genius was that of "cross breeding" two apparently
ancilliary principles into a more general theory of Gravity, general
enough to apply to the whole cosmos, etc...
I don't quite see why you insist in this by the way!? If the "I" is
commonly shared and is mapped to a shared physical
system why different physical laws for different people?
(Are we still in Kansas, Toto?)
On this I am sticking with Bruno. I don't think you answer him any
better below...
[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. :-)
[GK]
Kansas, oh yes!
[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
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
