>I don't know what you mean by singularity, runtime, etc. In the UDA I >use some consensual reality to support an argument, but in fine I >isolated an axiomatic theory.
By singularity I mean the sum total of all phenomena minus timespace. The idea of a monad from which all temporal phenomena emerges through a program-like process or 'Runtime', within which spacetime sequences are strictly observed. That's what I thought you meant by UDA - the layer of reality in which we participate where we are limited by the constraints of what kind of a thing we are - what scale, position, how much matter in what kind of arrangement, etc. >You talk like if you knew the truth. Are you a sort of guru of what? No, it's just that it gets redundant to constantly use words like 'I think' 'my guess is', etc. I'm just presenting a hypothetical cosmology, so everything I say should be assumed to be my own opinions and ideas. >>Motive power is inversely proportionate to the >> difference in the scale of the two densities, so that it's not gravity >> exerting a field of force holding you to the ground, >? I'm saying that gravity is not a field that physically exists in space, it's more like a function of how matter is organized. I think that gravity may be like a Kryptonite effect which drains the effectiveness of motive force exerted against a greater body. >> but rather principles having an experience >> of concreteness (by pretending they are the opposite end of what they >> essentially are - ie chasing their tail, thus becoming existential and >> completing the sensorimotive circuit of the singularity to become the >> opposite of the singularity: not just everything and anything, but >> finite, coherent things which come and go into existence, as well is >> less coherent non-things that are literally felt out of insistence). >? I'm describing why I think phenomena come into existence. I'm suggesting that the Singularity is the ground of being, but that it seeks to temporarily be the opposite of itself, and that it does this by dividing itself through the creation of timespace (Runtime) within itself, so that each discrete phenomena has a sensorimotive and an electromagnetic nature. The sensorimotive side is the immaterial side which seeks a circuitous experience of breaking apart from the Singularity, and then returning to it's source, thus giving rise to sequence and the experience of time, which is perception. The electomagnetic side is the container of sensorimotive experience which serves to physically define the relations between the exteriors of phenomena in space. The nature of electromagnetic existence, then, is exterior phenomena coexisting in space, while the sensorimotive experience is an insistence felt from within. When we see a magnet attract an iron filing, we experience it objectively as a iron filings being passively pulled by invisible magnetic waves. What I'm suggesting is that like gravity, magnetism is experienced from within as a powerlessness to escape becoming part of something more powerful. >It is very hard to make sense of what you are saying. > From my work you can take deduce that you need special non Turing >emulable components in some primitive matter (nor even quantum >emulable). The only primitive matter would be the Singularity, which would be both primitive and the teleological antithesis of primitive, since it is the container of all spacetime production and not a product of spacetime processes. Craig On Jul 17, 11:38 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 Jul 2011, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: -- 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.
