Tom Caylor wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:29 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "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. 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.
> Yeah, that was me (really) with my virtual tongue in my virtual cheek
> trying to be really funny (in reality), whether successful or not.
>> 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'm just trying to wax philosophical here, but do you think that our
> goal should actually be to utter that 'something'?  Do you think we
> could?  Would we be able to understand it if we uttered it?  Or is
> this simply the realm of faith?  As in Bruno's definition of reality,
> it's the un-totally-explainable reason why we keep doing science?
*(a) Appearance Aspect*
We utter all existing "laws of appearances" as 'laws of nature' knowing 
they are not actually proven. An alien with a totally different 
P-consciousness would have a completely different collection of "laws of 
appearances" which would be equally predictive (human and Alien agree on 
predictions, not laws of nature).

*(b) Structure Aspect*
OTOH, if we also allow ourselves to hypothesise 'structural primitives 
and their appropriate rule sets of interaction such that (a) an observer 
emerged and became a scientist with a P-consciousness and that 
simultaneously was consistent with (b) all the "laws of appearances". 
The 'structural primitives' and rules are no better known than. Human 
and Alien 'laws of structure' must converge, for both human and alien 
are made of it. You'd have to translate them into each other's syntax, 
but once translated they must be identical.

(a) is NOT reality, but about it.
(b) is NOT reality, but about it.
In both cases we have ambiguity and lack of certainty (in the sense of 
ultimate truth).

So.... in what sense can anyone claim that in (a) we have accessed 
anything proven, ultimate or unique? They are all interim hypotheses of 
status "thus far not wrong" and predictive.

Likewise in (b).

So yes.... we can most certainly 'utter that something'....we have no 
lesser grounds than we have to 'utter the existing appearances'. What we 
don't have any sane right to continue to do is install arbitrary beliefs 
based on maths rapture that <X> (a) and (b) are identical or <Y> to 
install metabelief in (a) that enshrines (a) by assuming a structural 
role to certain (a) maths ....... where both <X> and <Y> have failed 
chronically for 2000 years to predict P-consciousness, which must 
clearly be the responsibility of (b), the noumenon.... for (a) science 
presupposes P-consciousness and scientists.

*So yeah!..... Let there be LOTS of such utterances and no more 
religious metabelief about (a)!*

This result has come from years of forensic metascience on my part.  
Here's an extract from the 'Dual Aspect Science' paper:

"A final contextual note. The idea of non-uniqueness of the knowledge 
bases (T and T') of human science is quite resonant with other shifts in 
perspective in the past. Human science must be a little sobered under 
the dual aspect framework because the laws originally constructed under 
a single aspect framework are recognised as non-unique and human-centric 
under a dual aspect framework. In going to dual aspect, human 'laws of 
nature' are displaced from the 'centre of knowledge' in the same way 
that the earth was displaced from the centre of the universe in the 
science of days gone by. On reflection it is impossible not to notice 
that if the transformation to dual aspect science is to have its 
objectors, those objectors can be seen to have the role of the church in 
the original scientific upheavals. The notional '/church of metabeliefs 
Figure 2(a) and 2(b)/' will provide us much food for thought!"

/Figure 2(a) and 2(b) is a diagram pointing at metabeliefs /<X>  and <Y> 
T is the (a) aspect 'laws' and T' is the (b) aspect 'laws'.

*Here's my abstract from the same paper:*

"Our chronically impoverished explanatory capacity in respect of 
P-consciousness is used as a vehicle for exploration of the idea that 
the problem may be a problem with science itself, rather than its lack 
of acquisition of some particular knowledge. The hidden assumption built 
into science is that science itself is a completed human behaviour. 
Removal of this assumption is achieved through a simple revision to our 
science model which is constructed, outlined and named 'dual aspect 
science'. It is constructed with reference to existing science being 
'single aspect science'. The new model is consistent with and predictive 
of the very explanatory poverty that generated it and is simultaneously 
a seamless upgrade in that no existing law of nature has to be altered 
in any way. *The framework is completely empirically self-consistent and 
serves to eliminate the behavioural inconsistencies that currently 
inhabit a world in which single aspect science has been inherited rather 
than chosen and in which its presuppositions are implemented through 
habit rather than by scientific examination of options by the scientists 
actually carrying out science.* The overall implication is that a 
discovery is made that has the potential to explain P-consciousness. 
However the discovery is about ourselves as scientists. We have to fully 
discover how to do science."

I expect the "church of mathematics rapture" (that we have had since QM 
was concocted) will reject the paper as some kind of heresy in due 
course. I'll let you know.

Geeze, when I started my artificial general intelligence project I'd 
never have predicted in a million years that I'd have to change the 
whole of science to get my hardware design validated. I have to have a 
viable basis to claim a (new type of) chip is having experiences... that 
basis is dual aspect science. I have my own set T' (have called it 
'entropy calculus' here before).

BTW the framework predicts there are actually 2 complete "theories of 
everything", T-TOE and T'-TOE. The T-TOE is only about appearances and 
is pretty much useless because it says nothing about P-consciousness (or 
scientists). The T'-TOE is literally the complete set T' and predicts 
P-consciousness consistent with the T-TOE.

The conflict between these two styles of TOE is already visible. Nobody 
gets that they are not competing. They are complementary. people who 
worked on strings, branes, loops, noise, froth etc are doing T' science. 
They just keep failing to make neuroscience predictions and fall into 
the trap of competing with T' predictions.... The clarity of the dual 
aspect framework is remarkable.

enuff already. Done it all to death.

Here in my rowboat my Galileo complex is coming along nicely :-P

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