And of course you could always add <ASPECT 0> - all possible instances of
<ASPECT 1>....

--------- 3-line Narnia ---------
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
--------- McSweeney's ---------

2008/10/13 Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  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}
> <ASPECT 2> =  { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
> including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
> science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
> <ASPECT 1:>  = {Null}
> <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}
> In other words, scientists have added special laws to <ASPECT 2> that
> masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs. Beliefs
> about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of quantum mechanical
> descriptions. EG: Stapp's "cloud-like" depiction. I put it to you that
> reality <ASPECT 1> could have every single particle in an exquisitely
> defined position simultaneously with just as exquisitely well defined
> momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or physical 'fuzziness'. I quite
> well defined particle operating in a dimensionality slightly higher than our
> own could easily appear fuzzy.....There is merely *lack of knowledge* and
> the reality of us as observers altering those very things when we
> observe....standard measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is
> COMPLETELY consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons
> are 'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an <aspect 1> reality
> that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To believe
> that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths seems to be
> consistent with that...utter delusion...
> Physics has also added a special law to <ASPECT 2>, a 'law of nature' which
> reads as follows: "Physicists do not and shall not populate set <ASPECT 1>
> because, well just because....".
> Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible for
> everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity to
> populate <ASPECT 2>. Abstractions of  reality derived through
> P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
> necessity, and if incorporated in <ASPECT 2> as an explanation of
> P-consciousness, become meta-belief...."I belief that this other <aspect 2>
> law has explained P-consciousness...." when it clearly does not because NONE
> of <aspect 2> PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS.  As to
> 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an <ASPECT 1> reality - responsible
> for the faculty that provides all observation, any less witnessed than
> anything is <ASPECT 2>? You are implicltly denying P-cosnciousness ITSELF
> and positing it as having been already explained in some way by CONTENTS of
> P-consciousness (that is literally, in context, scientific observation). Do
> you see that?
> In this way, solving for consciousness is systemically proscribed, along
> with the permanent failure to solve P-consciousness. Every example where I
> have discovered anyone attempting to populate <ASPECT 1> or even positing a
> mechanism by which that might systematically ignored and
> marginalised.
> Actual underlying reality creates P-consciousness. Nothing else. Until we
> allow ourselves to populate <aspect 1> we will NEVER explain anything, let
> alone P-consciousness. We will only describe. If we believe we already
> explained anything then we have installed a metapelief in the <ASPECT 1> set
> and we are living it as a religion. If we believe that <aspect 1> is
> unapproachable for no other reason than cultural preference then DITTO.
> I hope you get this.
> I finished Henry Stapp's book. There's a bunch of stuff about dual aspect
> and whitehead, which would be good except....all of it is couched in terms
> of ascription of QM as having an ontological role: a universe made of
> anstract maths descriptions. So frustrating. There is an inability to be
> able to comprehend the difference between maths as abstracted description of
> appearances and "literal reality, also described with further abstractions,
> by an observer made of it".
> *As scientists we haven't even begun to populate <ASPECT 1>. We need to
> start. The delusions that are in place in <aspect 2> are far more bizarre
> than any sane approach to a characterisation of reality that involves
> populating a <aspect 1> that is explanatory of P-consciousness.
> *
> Or you can take the blue pill.... the status quo... and live a deluded
> science model in which a clubbish, fashion ridden maths rapture
> rules...something I cannot do.
> regards,
> 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