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 PS - Mark, what is CDES? David On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---