> Colin Hales wrote:
>>The underlying structure unifies the whole system. Of course you'll
>>get some impact via the causality of the
structure....via the deep structure right down into the very fabric of space.
>> In a very real way the existence of 'mysterious observer dependence'
actually proof that the hierarchically organised S(.) structure idea must be
>> somewhere near the answer.
> Not really. You can have a two-way causal interdependene between two
systems without them both having th esame structure.
I think you are assuming a separateness of structure that does not exist.
There is one and one only structure. We are all part of it. There is no concept of 'separate' to be had. Absolutely everything is included in the structure. No exceptions. Space, atoms, scientists, qualia. All interactions at all 'scales' (scale itself) are all interactions between different parts of the one structure. To interact at all is to interact with another part of the structure. The idea of there being anything else ('not' the structure) is meaningless. If there is any 'thing' in the structure then the balance of the structure expressed a perfect un-thing.
There is nothing else. That is the coincept I am exploring.
>> Note that we don't actually have to know what S(.) is to make a whole
>> pile of observations of properties of organisations of it that apply
>> regardless of the particular S(.). It may be we never actually get to
>> sort out the
specifics of S(.)! (I have an idea, but it doesn't matter from the point
>> view of understanding qualia as another property of the structure
>> In Bruno's terms the structure of S(.) is what he calls 'objective
>> I would say that in science the first person view has primacy.
> Epistemic or Ontic ?
These are just words invented by members of the structure. But I'll try.
The structure delivers qualia in the first person. Those qualia are quite valid 'things' (virtual matter)..organisation/behaviour of structure.
Their presentation bestows intrinsic knowledge as a measurement to the embedded structure member called the scientist. This is knowledge as intrinsic intentionality. Within the experiences is regularity which can then be characterised as knowledge attributed to some identified behaviour in the structure. This attribution is only an attribution as to behaviour of the structure, not the structure. These attributions can be used by a another scientist in their 'first person' world.
All of this is derived from a first person presentation of a measurement.
Ergo science is entirely first operson based. Epistemic and Ontic characters are smatter throughout this description. I could label them all but you already know and the process adds nothing to the message or to sorting out how it all works.
>> I'd say that
>> we formulate abstractions that correlate with agreed appearances
>> first person view. However, the correspo0ndence between the
structure and the formulate abstractions is only that - a correlation.
>> models are not the structure.
> *Could* they be the structure ? if it necessarily the case that the
> "structure" cannot be modelled, then it is perhaps no strcuture at
Which is the simpler and more reasonable basis upon which to explore the
1) The universe is literally constructed by some sort of 'empirical_law_in_ a_certain_context embodiment machine' by means unknown that has appearances (qualia as 1st person perception) that cannot be predicted by empirical laws driving the machine, yet are clearly implemented by the machine. (logically equivalent to "the laws of nature are invoked by the purple balloon people of the horsehead nebula").
2) The universe is a structure of which we are a part and which also has the property of delivering appearances of itself to us within which is regularity that can be captured mathematically as empirical laws. By considering universes of structure capable of delivering appearances we can then insist that the structures appearances thus delivered shall also deliver appearances that would lead us to formulate regularity as empirical laws when made of it... this 2-sided equation with qualia the linking/unifying/central/prime feature is dual aspect science.
Parsimony is in 2), not 1).
>> Yes....all these things rely on perceptual mechanisms which will
never...repeat...never...be found in quantum mechanics....nor any other depiction of appearances.
> Why not ?
Continuing right along: sorry....
QM is an appearance. Trying to explain appearance with appearance is like trying to telephone somebody a telephone (or maybe fax a real fax machine down the line). It doesn’t make sense. If you want to figure out how the phone works then you have to start thinking about the things that comprise something that behaves phone_system-ly to phone users. The universe is not made of quantum mechanics. Indeed the universe is not made of Xics (where X is any empirical law/system of laws of nature derived from appearances). It merely behaves Xically. If X is mass then the universe is behaving mass-ly (=inertially). This is quite general.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
- RE: Dual-Aspect Science Colin Hales