On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:57:43 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>  On 10/16/2012 10:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:48:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>  On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>>  On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
>>> On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
>>> Hi Alberto,
>>>     OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously 
>>> wrote: "Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for 
>>> almost anything." and now you suggest that consciousness is contingent on a 
>>> level of evolution, ala: "... in this stage of evolution a form of 
>>> consciousness becomes a necessity". 
>>>     How is this not an argument for emergence from complexity? What is 
>>> evolution other than a mechanism in Nature to generate increasing stable 
>>> complex structures in the physical universe? Either consciousness is an 
>>> irreducible primitive or it is not?
>>>     I agree that complexity *is* involved when we consider issues such 
>>> as "reportablity" of consciousness, but the property of "having a 
>>> subjective experience of being in the world" itself can be strongly argued 
>>> to flow at the most basic level that allows differences.
>>> If there are no inputs from the world to perceive, e.g. a person in a 
>>> sensory deprivation tank, or the 'perceptions' are very simple 
>>> interactions, e.g. an orbital electron scattering a photon what will be the 
>>> content of this subjective experience?
>>> Brent
>>>  -- 
>>>  Hi Brent,
>>>     How so? Do we humans have "orbital electron scattering" of photonsas 
>>> actual experiential content? 
>>> No, but Craig thinks electrons do.
>> Only if electrons actually exist. I think there is a good chance that 
>> they are only the shared experience of atoms.
>> Hi Craig,
>>     Well, we differ on that point! If we accept atoms, we also have to 
>> accept electrons! Best not go there!
> Unfortunately if I doubt photons really the whole Standard Model is 
> potentially up for grabs. The wide variation in the modeling of atoms tells 
> me that it is not a given that electrons are not just an accounting of 
> atomic charge states. It may be that electrons are objective in some senses 
> but subjective in others (photons being subjective in more ways). That 
> seems the most likely.
>  Hi Craig,
>     Interesting challenge! What if we jettison as a confabulation all of 
> physical theory... What is left? Shall we cast aside the nice predictive 
> values that we have gotten? What then? I am willing to go there for the 
> sake of discussion, but to where?

I don't see any reason to question any other aspects of physics except 
those which the uncertainty principle apply.  If we can't measure 
something's position and momentum at the same time, or if we cannot state 
clearly whether something is a particle or a wave made out of a substance 
which is independent of matter, then I think we have to assume that it is 
possibly a subjective experience associated with those things that do seem 
physically certain and definite to us as objects in space.

>     Let's try something. Consider the Bp&p idea. Belief in a proposition 
> and it is true. Can we reconstruct explanations from this? We would have to 
> have a plurality of entities that would have the beliefs, no? Where do we 
> get that plurality? Let's stipulate that we have a plurality somehow. There 
> should be something that distinguishes them, something other than positions 
> in space and time... or is there anything that would generate distinctions? 

Perceptual inertia distinguishes them. Every body has unique experiences 
which shape its sense capacities to the extent that they are unique on some 
level (on primitive levels it may be that this level is minimized, or at 
least it is as far as we are concerned). On the cognitive level they are 
beliefs or preferences, but every sense channel has it's version...harmony, 
beauty, satisfaction, etc. Whatever refers back to the solitrope (solace of 
perfect private peace/self identification).

    Maybe the beliefs are frames in different languages that require some 
> transformation to translate the propositions of one into something 
> equivalent for all others. My assumption is that we have to have a common 
> reality to recover something like physical theories and we can get that 
> either by imbedding our entities into a single space or by simply having a 
> common set of propositions that form a non-contradictory set, something 
> isomorphic to a Boolean algebra if and only if the propositions are 
> satisfiable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem>such 
> that the total logical formulation is TRUE. I favor the latter idea, 
> but it requires that the physical universe that we observe to be 
> representable as a true Boolean algebra and a repudiation of the idea that 
> "substance" is ontologically priomitive.

I think it's all sense channels. If you have a microwave oven, the food 
with water in it cooks while the walls of the microwave remain relatively 
cool. This says to me that the reality between the chicken cooking and the 
plastic not cooking can't fully be described as common. Realism is the 
agreement of sense channels. I agree that the patterns that the sense 
channels reflect when they overlap and cancel each other out are 
algebraic-geometric and non-contradictory - or - wait a second...

Just as our 1p experience is a plenum of signal which seeks the proprietary 
solace of solitropy, the 3p view seeks entropy, which is sort of like 
public anti-solace. We are happy when we get what we want, but the 3p seems 
to us a place which is happy where nothing gets to want anything. An 
equilibrium of static mass and vacuum - heat death.

>     How is it determined to be satisfiable becomes an interesting 
> question! Most thinkers seem to assume that its global logical consistency 
> is completely determined ab initio by the combination of "physical laws" 
> and initial conditions. But exactly how did the physical laws come to exist 
> such that they never generate a logical inconsistency (violating 
> satisfiability) and thus "white rabbits"? I think that the physical laws 
> are the result of an underlying process that is, in the ontological sense, 
> eternal and that what we observe as a physical universe is just an 
> intersection of logically true beliefs for some finite collection of 
> entities.

I'm with you until the last sentence. Logical true beliefs are really not 
something I consider relevant beyond human or animal psychology. The laws 
of physics are observable to us because we are physical bodies. They are 
logically consistent because they are all nothing but the 
Totality-singularity breaking itself up using the first successful 
diffraction algorithm that it could use. It's non-contradictory because on 
the physical level, it is all rooted in one sense experience, to which 
spacetime is a posteriori. 

>  Do we have a way of isolating electrons which are independent of ions? 
> When I look up the research online, it is always (naturally) a foregone 
> conclusion that they do exist in isolation but I haven't found anything 
> which explains how specifically we know that (or how we could know that).
>     Are electrons entities that we can capture in a jar? Yes!  
> http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29675
Oh, I'm aware that we think that we can capture them in a jar, but it isn't 
clear what specifically is confirming that for us and how we know that what 
we think is the electron isn't a belief of those atoms (which is only 
conditionally true). It's sort of like if I have a video of something funny 
and every audience laughs at it, then I might think that I have trapped 
laughter in a theater.

> I'm not anxious to try to advocate for electron agnosticism on top of 
> photon agnosticism, but if there is nothing convince me otherwise, then 
> there is no reason not to go there as well (other than fear of ridicule, 
> which I only care about if I'm actually wrong).
> Craig
>     Umm, I think that you are wrong on this one, but I am OK with the 
> possibility of being wrong. ;-) 

I agree, I could be wrong on this, but I haven't seen anything to convince 
me yet that I am. I haven't looked very hard, but in principle, electrons 
are similar enough to photons which are similar enough to nothing at all 
that it is worth questioning.

> One thing that I should add en passant. In my current thinking an entity 
> has sense or 1p if and only if it can be represented by a separable QM 
> system. When we consider such "monads" as interacting QM systems (and 
> assume decoherence theory) they are no longer separable (as they are 
> entangled) their 'common" observables form a commutative (Abelian) sheaf 
> that maps (somehow) to a Boolean algebra. The "classical world" is just the 
> topological dual of the Boolean Algebra.

Sure, yeah. Especially if the QM system is the 3p shadow of the 1p system 


> Onward!
> Stephen

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to