Roger, I know Brian Greene personally and have read his book, Fabric of the Cosmos. He was a postdoc at my school. He is not a founder of string theory, Max Green is. His view of space is quite conventional except for the extra dimensions of string theory. Richard
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics > on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch > > NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of > sgtring theory) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4U&playnext=1&list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7H&feature=results_main > > > or go to > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity > > > Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: > > " Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of > observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. > Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation > to each other. > The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers." > > or > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space > > > "In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a > central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. > At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and > Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, > set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity > that independently > exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than > the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world > "space is that which results from places taken together".[5] Unoccupied > regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations > with other places. > For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations > between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could > not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a > similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the > family are related to one another, > the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued > that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that > implies a difference between > two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in > each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these > universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there > would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of > sufficient reason, > any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible > universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 10/11/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 > Subject: Re: Impossible connections > > > I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that > Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his > conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or > manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, > then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of > private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public > bodies. > > Craig > > PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where > Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but > figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. > > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: > Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. > Richard > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. >> The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible >> between ideas and things. >> >> >> Roger Clough, [email protected] >> 10/11/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 >> Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls >> >> >> Craig, >> The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. >> I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. >> But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. >> The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. >> Names are not important. >> Richard >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: >>>> >>>> Craig, >>>> >>>> I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the >>>> substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if >>>> consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then >>>> the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. >>>> So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. >>> >>> >>> I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think >>> that what you are describing would be technically categorized as >>> interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be >>> two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that >>> doesn't...bleed? >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) >>> >>>> >>>> Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory >>>> monads.. >>>> >>>> For example take the binding problem where: >>>> "There are an almost infinite number of possible, different >>>> objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single >>>> neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each >>>> one." (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) >>>> However, at a density of 10^90/cc >>>> (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), >>>> the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for >>>> "all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial >>>> location" >>>> ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: >>>> >>>> http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) >>> >>> >>> I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries >>> to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually >>> suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The >>> hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? >>> >>>> >>>> So the monads and the neurons experience the same things >>>> because of the BEC entanglement connection. >>>> These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory >>>> that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness >>>> and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads >>>> perhaps to solve the binding problem >>>> and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. >>> >>> >>> This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and >>> neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what >>> we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human >>> consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum >>> framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this >>> capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble >>> perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an >>> experiencer? >>> >>> Craig >>> >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. >>> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/vKAYTmOVQygJ. > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
