On 12 Jul 2012, at 02:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/11/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/11/2012 7:32 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
In your work you seem to posit that numbers have minds (thus
they can dream) and that their ideas are passive and yet can
reproduce all phenomena that would be explained as being the
result of physical acts in materialism. You argue that this
reduces all phenomena to passive hypostatization, but I argue that
this is a fallacy of misplaced concreteness as per the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness, since you have severed all ties to
physical implementation. Please understand that it seems that the
only place where there is disagreement between you and I is on the
postulation of primacy. I am arguing that neither matter (atoms)
nor ideas (numbers) can be taken as primitives as they are devoid
of causal efficacy.
But you are assuming that is some fact-of-the-matter as to where
'concreteness' is placed. I think this is a mistake (a theological
mistake). The scientific attitude is to hypothesize whatever you
want as the basic ontology and to see if the resulting model is
consistent and predictive of the epistemological (subjective)
facts. So you may take tables and chair as basic objects
interacting through gravity, electromagnetic, and contact forces -
this is the model of Newtonian physics. It obviously leaves out a
lot and ultimately was found to be applicable only in a limited
domain of its own ontology. You may start with atoms of conscious
thoughts (aka observer moments) and try to recover the
intersubjective world from that. And there is no proof known that
would prohibit these different bases from making overlapping or
even identical predictions. There may be no *unique* basis.
Brent
--
If QM is correct then there is no *unique* basis! This is the
"basis problem" of MWI rit large!
It seems to me that Everett shows convincingly that the "MW" does not
depend on the basis, even if the partitioning of the mutliverse
depends locally on the base used in some measurement. Then, once brain
appears, they will defined some local relative base, but this does not
change the universal wave, which will give the same observation for
all possible observers, whatever base is used for the universal wave.
There is no unique base, but physics, globally, does not depend on the
choice of that base. A base choice is really like the choice of a map.
Locally the base are defined by what we decide to measure, but of
course "nature" has made the choice for us, and Brent mentions paper
explaining how such fact is possible, and why the position base can be
justified for measurement by entities of our type. The point is that
such a justification can be made *in* any base chosen.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
