Kim Jones wrote:
> On 24/11/2008, at 10:29 AM, Colin Hales wrote:
>> OK. I was rowing my apparently virtual boat merrily down the stream. 
>> But apparently that's not interesting enough. :-)
> It's more interesting when you get a barbershop quartet to sing it as 
> a round - then you get polyphony!
he he.
>> VIRTUAL is just a word. "AS-IF" would be a good synonym. The 
>> physicists in question are trying to make sense of a *model* of 
>> appearances (how the world appears to them when they look). They can 
>> be 100% predictive  (in the article now, 98% predictive) and be 100% 
>> not talking about what reality is made of.
> Agreed - you have explained this very well in many of your other 
> posts. I'm not even a physicist's or a logician's or even a humble 
> mathematician's bootlace, so if I can understand you, that's a big 
> complement on the clarity of your exposition
I think I might be a physicist's armpit or maybe the itchy bit that you 
just can't get at. :-)
>> The reason is that they build the phenomenal consciousness of the 
>> scientists into all laws whilst creating a set of laws of appearances 
>> that entirely and permanently fail to predict phenomenal 
>> consicousness. A system I am entirely fed up with and choose mostly 
>> to resign myself to (in the sense of I give up arguing about it).
> So here I may need some help. Aren't you some kind of latter-day 
> Copenhagenist in this? Or are you saying scientists introduce the 
> observer as if real and then fail to see his reality in the data (as 
> somehow affecting the data?) I know this list has been pummelling away 
> at this issue for years, but I was just hoping that somebody for once 
> may have actually damped down the dust a little - as this article 
> suggests. Psychologist Carl Jung got very excited in the late 50s 
> after he gained a rudimentary understanding of particle physics from 
> Wolfgang Pauli and was completely over the moon about Heisenberg's 
> Uncertainty Principle because he had always believed in his heart of 
> hearts that reality was God's "dream" (he was a bit of a closet 
> theologian as well) and was seeing in all this confirmation of the 
> central place in the universe of human consciousness (the "psyche" as 
> he and Freud called it)
> He saw this as God's hand at work. Maybe this is tangential to the 
> point; I don't know
I choose this:
*Or are you saying scientists introduce the observer as if real and then 
fail to see his reality in the data (as somehow affecting the data?)
*as me (ish)

QM goes this far:
(a) The human scientist  is inside the system described.
(b) In a scientific act the human is involved in the particular outcome.
(c) The observation then acts in support of the QM model.

QM's XYZ interpetation then says "reality if made of my flavour of math 
XYZ". and then runs off into the implications of the *math*, rather than 
what reality actually is. In other words they all attribute a QM "law of 
appearance" in some way as structural.

The thing is that this mis-attribution fails because it fails in all 
ways to predict phenomenal (P-)consciousness. Prediction (c) is merely 
"contents of P-consciousness" = particular observation. I mean it (QM) 
fails to predict the existence of P-consciousness.....which is EXACTLY 
the failure you would predict would occur if appearances were NOT 
structural in any way (or better - that descriptions of structure and 
descriptions of appearances are NOT the same thing).

I am not saying that there is a discovery to be made in the existing 
paradigm of physics.

I am saying that the discovery to be made is about OURSELVES....we must 
discover how to do science, rather than accept hand-me-down dogma from 
our ignorant forbears via the mentor/novice system, which is what 
actually happens.

>> Reality can be made of interacting 'somethings', where that 
>> 'something' has not even been uttered yet in any physics ever, and 
>> the results in the paper would still be as they are because all the 
>> scientists are doing is organising appearances.
> I have absolutely no problem with that thought. Who would have even 
> DREAMED of Dark Matter and Dark Energy before they turned up? Your 
> separation of the two "systems" of thinking into the subjective world 
> of appearances and the phenomenal (virtual/"as-if") world strikes me 
> as extremely useful and simplifies a lot of the angels-on-pinheads 
> aspect to much of the relentless discussion going on. Once again, 
> we've been talking about "observer moments" for years. I imagine 
> there's a lot more talk still to come.
> I only ask (muse?) - can't they BOTH be true (the psychical/subjective 
> phenomenality AND the substratum - whatever that is: numbers, 
> mathematical objects, a primitive physical materiality, whatever?) 
> Considering most people are now entertaining serious notions of higher 
> dimensions, parallel universes and the like - it would seem there is 
> room for both (dare I say) realities to co-exist (and associate via 
> interference phenomena?) What that could possibly mean is up to 
> someone with more clout than I to say
Yes. MUSE+++++
Both are real.
Both are equally empirically supported by P-consciousness.
But the existing descriptive paradigm, has failed for 2000++ years to 
predict P-consciousness.
....because it is the STRUCTURE (noumenon) side that is actually 
delivering the P-consciousness - it is ACTUAL reality.

I have a paper here: Hales, C. (2006), 'AI and Science's Lost Realm'. 
IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(3):pp. 76-81.
which mainly bitches on about inconsistencies in science.

I have another 'Dual Aspect Science' paper in review elsewhere, which 
details the science structure and examines the implications. This I hope 
might break down a barrier or two. We'll see.

>> So in terms of the use of the word 'virtual' you seem to want to 
>> discuss ... yes, it is 'as-if' the universe were made of <pick your 
>> fave from the zoo of particle/antiparticle pairs>. But the universe 
>> could _actually_ be made of something completely different and 
>> they'll never know because they never let them consider the 
>> possibility of separation of "appearance" and "structure"(that 
>> creates appearances in humans made of the structure). So ....
> But that underscores the need for something like Bruno's comp hyp, 
> surely. We can only BET on the higher realities. Goedel has kind of 
> proven that we can never prove anything about them
> We are stuck on the inside of Nothing, as Russell says.
(i) I still don't know whether Bruno's COMP is a 
structure(noumenon)-aspect description of an actual reality.
(ii) If it is a model being computed in our reality that is supposed to 
behave 'like' ours.

In the case of (i) COMP would be the rules underlying 'natural cellular 
automaton' and could actually be a viable structure aspect 'science'. 
There is no computer. The interacting structural primitives are reality.

In the case of (ii) COMP is just false. As in COMPutationalism. An 
abstract model of reality cannot deliver the dynamics of a reality 
because it cannot deliver a scientist inside it because it has to 
perfectly define ignorance..which means it must know everything already 
and it doesn't because science is possible. Logical sweet-spot.

Re: RUSSEL & "We are stuck on the inside of Nothing"
*Excellent!* I didn't know he said that...where?
0 = 1-1+1-1+1-1......(you) +1-1+1 ...(me) +1-1+1- (boat) 
+1-1+1-1+(physicist)+1-1+1-1+1- ..... .....
"Nothing" (No-thing) is impossible, You can't add up quick enough to 
make it perfect. state it better: "Nothing" is an unstable (temporary) equilibrium.

(a) Noumenon is the RHS of the above.
(b) Phenomenon is the RHS from the perspective of being (you) or (me) as 
a scientist.

'virtual particles' are appearances produced by  (b) not (a).
We haven't even recognised the right for the (a) description to be 
constructed yet.
We are assuming descriptions of (b) are impossible. Still, after 2000++ 
years of assumption.
Which all sucks really.
I tend to think in very practical modes. I am only interested in the 
universe we are in and in which there are chronic pain sufferers who'd 
really like to have their P-consciousness fixed. This means explaining 
P-consciousness. Which as I have described... is the very thing current 
physics-of-appearances fails to do.

>> "According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
>> something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
>> CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality, to
>> 'Confirmation' (insofar as consistency with a model does that) of 
>> virtual particles as a model of appearances cannot be confused with a 
>> 'virtual' or 'AS-IF' confirmation.
> But you are saying scientists are regularly doing just that. Hence 
> your ongoing frustration, yes?
Much simpler... a language problem...
confirmation of virtual particles is not virtual confirmation! It's 

The problem I have is the sense in which what has been done is 
'confirmation'. It represents is consistency with a model of 
appearances. That is all. Predictive, useful...but only that. NOT 
structural. As usual the process is completely in presupposition of the 
existence of appearances and of a scientist to accept/have those 

It seems that the last thing physicists want to do is predict 
themselves. They do absolutely "everything" except that. When they say 
"everything" in a "Theory of Everything", that's what they actually 
mean: Everything except physicists (and their P-consciousness).

>> Scientists don't act 'as if' they do science. They actually do it, 
>> even if it's only the 'appearances' half of the pair of possible 
>> science models). So the above sentence conflates terms, which is why 
>> I thought you weren't serious.
> I'm both serious and unserious. I exist in an infinitude of brain 
> states over this. Humour, lateral thinking and discontinuity 
> (provocation) often gives birth to previously hidden directions in 
> thinking. A well placed jocular statement can often show people the 
> sidetrack that leads straight to the solution that they just zipped 
> past in blind straight-ahead vertical thinking fashion. 
Here's hoping this might happen in the mental states of a few here on 
>> Getting back in boat, assuming merrily mode. It's as if I am rowing, 
>> downstream. :-)
> Is there room for two in that boat, Colin?
> Kim

Always! The more the merrier! :-)
I have to get back to work!


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