Brent Meeker wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
>>  >From the "everything list" ....FYI
>> Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the 
>>> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories 
>>> represents the current state of QM.
>>> Brent Meeker
>> Jesse Maser wrote:
>> The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about 
>> QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or 
>> the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying 
>> reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as 
>> long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead 
>> to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but 
>> physicists often discuss them nevertheless.
>> -----------------------------------------
>> There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to 
>> know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to 
>> give you the red pill.
>> Name any collection of QM physicist you any XYZ 
>> interpretation, ABC interpretations....Blah interpretations... So what? 
>> You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not 
>> see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled 
>> 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?"  Read 
>> Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is 
>> programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's 
>> some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like 
>> this then I'll get listened to"....
>> /and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./ 
>> This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that 
>> fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a 
>> club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even 
>> plainer with set theory:
>> <ASPECT 1> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
> How do you know the Standard model, for example, is not descriptive of 
> underlying reality.  If it's not, there sure are some amazing incidents of 
> prediction.
What? The standard model IS merely descriptive! .... /*of*/ an 
underlying reality ...It is incredibly predictive....BUT It describes 
*/_how it will appear_/* to an assumed observer. It does not describe 
the STRUCTURE of an underlying  reality. In no way can anyone assume that
is ONE _is to_ ONE

This would arbitrarily populate an IDENTITY, {<aspect 1>} = {<aspect 2>} 
and again fail to predict an observer. Scientists have been doing this 
for 50 years. It's call the 'mind brain identity theory'. To describe 
the brain is to explain the mind....again nothing predictive of mind 
ever occurs.

>> <ASPECT 2> =  { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, 
>> including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social 
>> science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
> What's the difference between an "empirical law" and a "descriptive law"?  
> Are 
> empirical laws not descriptive?
>> <ASPECT 1:>  = {Null}
> See above.
>> <ASPECT 2>  = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor 
>> do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who 
>> has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
> People said the same thing about life and postulated an elan vital.  Maybe 
> it's 
> just that you don't have a clue as to what an explanation would look like.

Please try to internalise what I actually mean by dual aspect... I have 
a very very complex <aspect 1> already constructed. I have already 
isolated the 1 fundamental principle which appears to be consistent with 
the whole thing.

I could write it out in detail. _BUT Without a dual aspect science the 
whole process is a waste of time._

An example of <aspect 1> science: Steven Wolfram has tried to populate 
<aspect 1> and doesn't realise it. He has been unjustifiably put down by 
the system of blinkered science I have encountered. Forget how 
right/wrong you may conceive Steven Wolfram to be.... merely try to 
imagine how different his depiction of an underlying reality is. It is 
<aspect 1> as a cellular automaton (CA). 'Dual Aspect science' makes 
sense of the basic Wolfram framework Wolfram failed to address the 
question "what is it like to BE an entity in a CA?"..this does not 
matter......In general terms: A correctly formulated <aspect 1> CA would 
reveal {<Aspect 2>} laws to an appropriate observer-entity /within the 
CA/, doing science on the CA from that perspective. <aspect 2> laws 
would equally fail to predict an observer, but would brilliantly predict 
specific observations. The rules of the CA are NOT the rules in {<aspect 
2>} They are a completely different set, <aspect 1>. Only the CA is 
responsible for the existence and nature of the observer within it. It 
is the CA <aspect 1> rules that are causal, not <aspect 2> rules. Both 
sets of rules are completely consistent with each other.

The system is completely consistent AND predictive of the *observer* as 
well as *observation*.

There is no reason at all why the same observer inside the CA cannot 
postulate <aspect 1> rules of the CA which self-assembles an observer 
which is then consistent with <aspect 2> that is thus constructed. There 
is no law or rule or anything else which says this is illegal or 
impossible or invalid or anything else like that. We fail to do it 
because we are stuck in a 300 year old delusion which merely makes the 
CA culturally invisible.

Why should the observer inside the CA be arbitrarily BANNED from 
considering reality as a CA, especially when it is the only possible 
source of an observer?

In this version of our science it would mean tribes of physicists, built 
of the CA, running around doing science from the perspective of being 
inside the CA, all denying the CA and arbitrarily forbidding all such 
considerations by erecting metabeliefs about they laws of description 
<aspect 2> in respect of the CA.

I hope this has unpacked your confusion in useful way.


Colin Hales

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

Reply via email to