On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> relationships entail existence and difference.

I sympathise.  In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships).  But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'.  I await clarification.

> Particles of matter are knots,
> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
> whatever other structural/topological features occur.

Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff.  Bruno
has had something to say about this in the past.

> If an
> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.

Yes, this may be an attractive notion.  I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality

David


> DN: '
>
> > I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
> > field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
> > fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> > 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
> > a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
> > 'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
> > liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
> > feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
> > then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
> > continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
> > from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
>
> MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
> crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
> "Why is there anything at all?"
>
> As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
> 'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
> As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
> explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
> simple minded view :-)
>
> Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; "I don't exist"
> is either metaphor or nonsense.
> As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
> parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
> Currently this makes me sympathetic to
> *       a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
> it's just not our brane/s] and
> *       a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.
>
> I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
> unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
> arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
> that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
> something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
> 'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
> and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
>
> In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
> of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
> however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
> important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
> the other one provides what otherwise we must call
> 'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
> basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
> described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
> and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
> simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
> results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
> direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
> whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
> intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
> direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
> interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
> waves with harmonics.
>
> For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
> connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
> 'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
> face would connect with others in a 'quorum' or node. This
> provides a potential explanation of quantum entanglement in that
> if each of the two faces of a Janus connection were in different
> particles, those particles might be fleeing from each other at
> the speed of light, or something close to it, yet for that
> particular Janus connection each face will still be simply the
> back side of its twin such that their temporal separation might
> be no more than the Planck time.
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Peaty  CDES
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
>
> David Nyman wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 2:01 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
> >> We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
> >> (Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
> >> reflexivity power of the number's themselves.
>
> > I simply meant that in AR numbers 'assert themselves', in that they
> > are taken as being (in some sense) primitive rather than being merely
> > mental constructs (intuitionism, I think?)  Is this not so?
>
> >> OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure
> >> there remains technical problems ...)
>
> > I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking'  the differentiating of an 'AR
> > field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'.  My
> > fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> > 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'.  The notion of
> > a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
> > 'parts' separated by 'nothing'.  The quotes I have sprinkled so
> > liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
> > feel need to be accounted for somehow.  'Parts' (particles, digits)
> > then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
> > continuum.  Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
> > from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?
>
> >> Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
> >> interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
> >> physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
> >> the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
> >> the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
> >> the right physics, that would be nice, sure.
>
> > Agreed.  But actually I meant that you would wish it to be an
> > empirical matter (rather than Father Jack's 'ecumenical' one!)
>
> > It seems to me that overall in this exchange we seem to be more in
> > agreement than sometimes formerly. Would you still describe my
> > position as positing 'consciousness' as primitive?  That's not my own
> > intuition. Rather, I'm trying to reverse the finger we point towards
> > the 'external' world when we seek to indicate the direction of 'what
> > exists'. I'm also stressing the immediacy of the mutual 'grasp' that
> > self-motivates the elements of what is real, and which constitutes
> > simultaneously their 'awareness' and their 'causal power' - and
> > consequently our own.  Beyond this, we seem to be in substantial
> > agreement that all complexity, including of course reflexive self-
> > consciousness', is necessarily a higher-order emergent from such basic
> > givens (which seem to me, in some form at least, intuitively
> > unavoidable).
>
> > David
>
> >> Le 11-juin-07, à 13:24, David Nyman wrote in part: (I agree with the
> >> non quoted part) ....
>
> >>> Are we any closer to agreement, mutatis terminoligical mutandis?  My
> >>> scheme does not take 'matter' to be fundamental, but rather an
> >>> emergent (with 'mind') from something prior that possesses the
> >>> characteristics of self-assertion, self-sensing, and self-action.  I
> >>> posit these because they are what is (Occamishly) required to save the
> >>> appearances.
> >> ... And here too.
>
> >>> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
> >> We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
> >> (Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
> >> reflexivity power of the number's themselves.
>
> >>> with
> >>> its intrinsic (arithmetical) set of symmetry-breaking axioms,
> >> OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure
> >> there remains technical problems ...)
>
> >>> then
> >>> COMP perhaps can stand for the process that drives this potential
> >>> towards emergent layers of self-action and self-sensing.
> >> Yes. Perhaps, indeed.
>
> >>> It then
> >>> becomes an empirical programme whether AR+COMP possesses the synthetic
> >>> power to save all the necessary phenomena.
> >> Exactly.
>
> >>> As you would wish it, I
> >>> imagine.
> >> Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
> >> interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
> >> physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
> >> the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
> >> the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
> >> the right physics, that would be nice, sure.
>
> >> Bruno
>
> >> htttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


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

Reply via email to