Hi Bruno Marchal My responses are indicated with ####s
----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-30, 13:58:19 Subject: Re: Einstein and space Hi Roger Clough, I have regrouped my comments because they are related. On 30 Sep 2012, at 13:34, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > With his relativity principle, Einstein showed us that > there is no such thing as space, because all distances > are relational, relative, not absolute. With comp there is clear sense in which there is not space, are there is only numbers (or lambda terms) and that they obey only two simple laws: addition and multiplication (resp. application and abstraction). Note that with Einstein, there is still an absolute space-time. ### ROGER: That was a later view of his, apparently in his attempt to restore some absolute order to the universe and to disprove QM. But it was an imaginary universe in which this applied, with no gravitational fields and curved space. So not a general explanation. > > The Michelson?orley experiment also proved that > there is no ether, there is absolutely nothing > there in what we call space. I agree, but there are little loopholes, perhaps. A friend of mine made his PhD on a plausible intepretation of Poincar? relativity theory, and points on the fact that such a theory can explain some of the "non covariance" of the Bohmian quantum mechanics (which is a many- world theory + particles having a necessary unknown initial conditions so that an added potential will guide the particle in "one" universe among those described by the universal quantum wave. I don't take this seriously, though. ### ROGER: Interesting. I myself, although in a joking manner, have said that the Michaelson-Morley experiment could be interpreted in two different ways: 1) That there was no ether that earth was moving through due to the fact that the measured speed of light is independent of direction, (which was the MM interpretation, ) or, as I jokingly suggested, 2) That the earth was stationary as was the absolute ether. So no directionality would be seen (that was what they observed). > Photons simply > jump across space, their so-called waves are > simply mathematical constructions. In that case you will have to explain me how mathematical construction can go through two slits and interfere. ### ROGER: Quanta are different from particles. They don't move from A to B along particular paths through space (or even through space), they move through all possible mathematical paths - which is to say that they are everywhere at once- until one particular path is selected by a measurement (or selected by passing through slits). ........... Note that intelligence requires the ability to select. Selection of a quantum path (collapse or reduction of the jungle of brain wave paths) produces consciousness, according to Penrose et al. They call it orchestrated reduction. . > > Leibniz similarly said, in his own way, that > neither space nor time are substances. > They do not exist. They do exist, however, > when they join to become (extended) substances > appearing as spacetime. OK. (and comp plausible). other post: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Leibniz would not go along with epiphenomena because > the matter that materialists base their beliefs in > is not real, so it can't emanate consciousness. Comp "true" . > > Leibniz did not believe in matter in the same way that > atheists today do not believe in God. Comp "true" . > > And with good reason. Leibniz contended that not only matter, > but spacetime itself (or any extended substance) could not > real because extended substances are infinitely divisible. Space time itself is not "real" for a deeper reason. Why would the physical not be infinitely divisible and extensible, especially if "not real"? #### ROGER: Objects can be physical and also infinitely divisible, but L considered this infinite divisibility to disqualify an object to be real because there's no end to the process, one wouldn't end up with something to refer to. > > Personally. I substitute Heisenberg's uncertainty principle > as the basis for this view because the fundamental particles > are supposedly divisible. By definition an atom is not divisible, and the "atoms" today are the elementary particles. Not sure you can divide an electron or a Higgs boson. With comp particles might get the sme explanation as the physicist, as fixed points for some transformation in a universal group or universal symmetrical system. The simple groups, the exceptional groups, the Monster group can play some role there (I speculate). #### ROGER: You can split an atom because it has parts, reactors do that all of the time. of this particular point, Electrons and other fundamental particles do not have parts. You lost me with the rest of this comment, but that's OK. > Or one might substitute > Einstein's principle of the relativity of spacetime. > The uncertainties left with us by Heisenberg on > the small scale and Einstein on the large scale > ought to cause materialists to base their beliefs on > something less elusive than matter. I can't agree more. Matter is plausibly the last ether of physics. Provably so if comp is true, and if there is no flaw in UDA. OTHER POST > Hi Bruno Marchal > > I'm still trying to figure out how numbers and ideas fit > into Leibniz's metaphysics. Little is written about this issue, > so I have to rely on what Leibniz says otherwise about monads. OK. I will interpret your monad by "intensional number". let me be explicit on this. I fixe once and for all a universal system: I chose the programming language LISP. Actually, a subset of it: the programs LISP computing only (partial) functions from N to N, with some list representation of the numbers like (0), (S 0), (S S 0), ... I enumerate in lexicographic way all the programs LISP. P_1, P_2, P_3, ... The ith partial computable functions phi_i is the one computed by P_i. I can place on N a new operation, written #, with a # b = phi_a(b), that is the result of the application of the ath program LISP, P_a, in the enumeration of all the program LISP above, on b. Then I define a number as being intensional when it occurs at the left of an expression like a # b. The choice of a universal system transforms each number into a (partial) function from N to N. A number u is universal if phi_u(a, b) = phi_a(b). u interprets or understands the program a and apply it to on b to give the result phi_a(b). a is the program, b is the data, and u is the computer. (a, b) here abbreviates some number coding the couple (a, b), to stay withe function having one argument (so u is a P_i, there is a universal program P_u). Universal is an intensional notion, it concerns the number playing the role of a name for the function. The left number in the (partial) operation #. #### ROGER: Despisers of religion would do well to understand this point, as follows: Numbers, like all beings in Platonia are intensional and necessary, so are not contingent, as monads are. Thus, arithmetical theorems and proofs do not change with time, are always true or always false. Perfect, heavenly, eternal truths, as they say. Angelic. Life itself. Free spirits. .................. Monads are intensional but are contingent, so they change (very rapidly) with time (like other inhabitants of Contingia). Monads are a bit corrupt like the rest of us. Although not perfect, they tend to strive to be so, at least those motivated by intellect (the principles of Platonia, so not entropic. Otherwise, those dominated by the lesser quality, passion, weaken. Entropic. As they say, the wages of sin is death. Those less dominant monads are eaten or taken over by the stronger ones. It's a Darwinian jungle down here. Crap happens. > > > Previously I noted that numbers could not be monads because > monads constantly change. They "change" relatively to universal numbers. The universal numbers in arithmetic constitutes a sort of INDRA NET, as all universal numbers reflects (can emulate, and does emulate, in the UD) all other universal numbers. Universal numbers introduce many relative dynamics in arithmetic. Given that "time is not real", this should not annoy you in any way. > Another argument against numbers > being monads is that all monads must be attached to corporeal > bodies. Ah? #### ROGER: By atttached I mean associated with. The association is permanent. Each monad is an individiaul with individual identity given by the corporeal body it is associated with. Its soul. All corporeal bodies are different and unique. > So monads refer to objects in the (already) created world, > whose identities persist, while ideas and numbers are not > created objects. Hmm... They "emanate" from arithmetical truth, so OK. The problem is in the "(already)" created world. ##### ROGER: To some extent there is continuous creation, such as the unfolding of subsequent generations of seed--> plant. seed----> plant, etc. woman----> baby--> next generation, etc. within a particular plant. or woman. Yet, according to L, monads cannot be created or destroyed. Not to worry as there are an infinite number of them. BRUNO: The existence of a "real physical world" is a badly express problem. All we can ask is that vast category of sharable dreams admits some (unique?) maximal consistent extension satisfying ... who? All universal numbers? ### ROGER: This is too complex an issue to answer here in great detail.. The ideas and numbers etc of Platonia can also inhabit the minds of men, and there is some limited sharing of ideas mentally, as well as some dim knowledge of the past and future. BRUNO: I don't know. I mean, I cannot make sense of an "already created world", nor of objects in there. So my attempt to intepret monads by universal number fails, but in your definition here you are using concept which I attempt to explain, and so I cannot use them. ####ROGER: Right. Monads and numbers are two different animals, although the inhabitants of Platonia can be "thought" or "proved" in the minds of men-monads.. BRUNO: But I refute your argument that numbers cannot change, as they do change all the time through their arithmetical relations with the universal numbers. ##### ROGER: IMHO By not changing I meant that 1 can never change to 2, it must always be 1. that numbers as numbers cannot change. However.... IMHO Different numbers can be generated by different calculations, using different inputs, or at some different time, but the resulting numbers are particulars to that particular calculation. And to my mind at least, members of, or belonging to, Contingia in some fashion. > > While numbers and ideas cannot be monads, they have to > be are entities in the mind, feelings, and bodily aspects > of monads. Numbers get the two role, at least from the pov of the universal numbers. That's the beauty of it. ##### ROGER: ? > For Leibniz refers to the "intellect" of human > monads. BRUNO: I refer to the "intellect" (terrestrial and divine) of the universal numbers, among mainly the L bian one (as the other are a bit too much mute on the interesting question). ROGER: IMHO Again let me refer to a) Numbers themselves. numbers as numbers themselves, and these do not change. 3 is always 3. b) Calculated numbers. But numbers resulting from calculations obviously can differ and change, depending on the type of calculation and varying inputs. > And similarly, numbers and ideas must be used > in the "fictional" construction of matter-- in the bodily > aspect of material monads, as well as the construction > of our bodies and brains. OK. But even truer at another level made possible by comp. As I try to illustrate. Arithmetic is full of life and dreams. 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 [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.everything-list Roger Clough, [email protected] 10/1/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen -- 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.
