On Aug 8, 12:03 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 07 Aug 2011, at 21:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 2:29 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > Bruno & Stephen,
> > Isn't there a concept of imprecision in absolute physical measurement
> > and drift in cosmological constants? Are atoms and molecules all
> > infinitesimally different in size or are they absolutely the same
> > size? Certainly individual cells of the same type vary in all of their
> > measurements, do they not?
> > If so, that would seem to suggest my view - that arithmetic is an
> > approximation of feeling, and not the other way around. Cosmos is a
> > feeling of order, or of wanting to manifest order, but it is not
> > primitively precise. Make sense?
> Not really. The size of a molecule can be considered infinite, if you
> describe the molecule by its quantum wave.
Wouldn't the quantum wave describe the character of groups of the
molecule rather than an actual instance of the molecule? Don't
individual molecules have measurable finite sizes? For instance, here
we can see C60 molecules are in the range of 2nm each.
> I don't see why arithmetic
> would approximate feeling, nor what that could mean. I don't see what
> you mean by cosmos, etc.
For instance, a chef might make a meal by adding informal quantities
of the ingredients and procedures according to how she feels. A pinch
of salt, a chunk of butter, mix well, heat until crispy, etc. If she
wants to publish this as a recipe, she might want to get more
quantitatively precise with ingredient amounts, time and temp, etc. If
however, the quantities were arithmetically precise to begin with,
there would not be any need to blur them into informal terms. If the
recipe for the universe is a book of numbers, there would be no need
for blurry feelings to arise to mask them.
> > Biological processes then, could be conceived as a 'levelling up' of
> > molecular arithmetic having been formally actualized,
> I don't understand. What do you mean by molecular arithmetic, etc.
I'm characterizing the mechanics of molecules as being more arithmetic
and deterministic than that of organisms. Saying that molecular
mechanics represent one level of feeling actualized into form, and
that the next level is form actualizing a more powerful experience of
> > a more
> > significant challenge is attempted on top of the completed molecular
> > canvas - with more elasticity and unpredictibility, and a host of
> > newer, richer feelings which expand upon the molecular range, becoming
> > at once more tangible and concrete, more real, and more unreal and
> > abstract. The increased potential for unreality in the subjective
> > interiority of the cells is what creates the perspective necessary to
> > conceive of the molecular world as objectively real by contrast. The
> > nervous system does the same trick one level higher.
> I see the words, but fail to see any precise meaning.
I'm saying that it's the difference between feeling and it's opposite
- arithmetic, which gives rise to the experience of 'reality'.
> It seems to me that you postulate all the notions that I think we
> should explain from simpler notions we agree on.
Not sure what you mean. If you're saying that I postulate that feeling
is not reducible but that you think we should reduce it to arithmetic,
I agree. I think the idea that feeling seems like it should be reduced
to something else is a consequence of the fact that our thoughts of
reduction are themselves a feeling.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at