I shall quickly try to explain in a bit more detail my idea for what
Qualia (phenomal accepts of conscious experiences) are again  - Because
it's clear that no-one yet understands what I was going on about in
my last post ;)

The important point is that you first accept the existence of some sort
of real 'abstract space' where 'abstract entities' reside.
This idea goes all the way back to Plato and his 'world of forms'
of course, but many are unaware that there is actually quite strong
justification from physics for thinking that some sort of 'abstract
space of mathematical forms' exists.  I recommend Julian Barbour's
'The End of Time' for good arguments, especially chapter 14.
Here's an extract from that chapter:

'...The new arena that Schrodinger introduced is something similar, a
configuration space....The most important thing about Schrodinger's
wave mechanics is that it is formulated not in space and time, but in a
suitably chosen 'configuration space' and time....  (For example-
for a system of three particles)....each possible arrangement of three
particles is a triangle and corresponds to a *single point* in (the
abstract configuration space of this system).  Many people are unaware
that the wave function is defined on configuration space.  That is
where (the quantum wave function) lives...Contrary to the impression
given in many books, quantum mechanics is not about particles in space:
it is about systems being in configurations - at 'points' in a
configuration space.  That is something quite different from individual
probabilities for individual particles being at different points of
ordinary space.  Each 'point' (in configuration space) is a whole
configuration (of a system).'

So QM actually provides strong evidence for thinking that some sort of
'abstract space of mathematical forms' exists.   If you accept that
the QM wave function is something 'real', then the point that
Barbour is making is that the wave function can't exist in ordinary
space... it has to exist in an *abstract* mathematical configuration
space.

Information theory actually makes extensive use of the notion of some
kind of abstract space.  It's well known that there are very strong
analogies between thermodynamics (concerned with physical states and
energy) and information theory (concerned with information and
*abstract spaces*).

I'm suggesting that for every *physical* concept we find an analogous
concept from *information theory*.  All I did was simply try to match
up all the physics concepts from thermodynamics with concepts from
information theory.  Look:

*Energy* is to physics, as *Information* is to Information theory.
*Location* is to physical space as *State* to is abstract space
*Extension* is to physical space as *Complexity* is to abstract space

*Mass* is to physics as *Mathematical Form* is to logic
*Juncture* is to physics as *Proposition* is to logic
*Structure* is to physics as *Theory* is to logic

It's important for me to emphasize that these are not concepts I'm
pulling out of my arse.  They all have precise definitions.  For
instance go to John Sowa's ontology web-site to obtain definitions
for some the second set of terms:

http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm

Precise definitions for the first set of terms come from physics and
information theory.

After carrying out this process of matching physics concepts to
concepts from information theory/logic I found critical gaps.  There is
nothing  in logic/information theory matching these physics concepts
listed below:

*Process*
*Activity*
*Situation*

These are 'Occurents', things with temporal parts, or simply
*physical processes*

(For definitions of these go to the ontology link:
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm

But if all thermodynamic concepts from physics can be matched to
analogous concepts from Information Theory/Logic, then there *should*
exist something analogous to these physics concepts in Information
Theory/Logic.

*Physical processes* consist of *physical objects* moving through
*physical space*.  Therefore, if the analogy holds:

*Abstract processes* should consist of *abstract objects* moving
through *abstract space*.

We know what *abstract space* is: its configuration/state space as
explained above:

*Location* is to physical space as *State* to is abstract space

We know what *abstract objects* are:

*Mass* is to physics as *Mathematical Form* is to logic

Therefore we can deduce what an *abstract process* is:

It must consist of the 'movement' of mathematical forms through
state space.  The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that
mathematical truth is not fixed, but can vary with time - because
that's exactly what 'the movement of mathematical forms through
state space' represents... the shifting of mathematical truth.

And I suggest *that Qualia are precisely these abstract processes* !!!

Hope this all makes a bit more sense.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to