# Re: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness

```Hi Bruno Marchal
```
```
You say, "Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic."

Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ?

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03
Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness

On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> For the record,
>
> Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind:
> the EM, and quantum waves and, fields;
>
> and the body: mainly electrons and photons.
>
> We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic.

Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a
universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person
indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than
arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in
machine's mind.

> We have some division on if that property extends to the body:
> like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the
> duality...

No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like
mind.

Bruno

>
> yanniru
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough
> wrote:
>> Wave collapse and consciousness
>>
>> According to the discussion below, a field only has potential
>> existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to
>> interact with it.
>> This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we
>> may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical
>> entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons
>> moving in/through it.
>>
>> Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing
>> the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations.
>> When the photon collides with something, the probability
>> is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location.
>>
>> So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the
>> collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such
>> as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field
>> to cause a collision.
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/8/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>> From: Roger Clough
>> Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17
>> Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
>>
>>
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>> IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the
>> definition below,
>> a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".....that
>> would
>> act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would"
>> tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence
>> itself.
>>
>> A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits
>> the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball
>> tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the
>> gravitational field itself.
>> It has no physical existence, only potential existence.
>>
>> Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only
>> detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. )
>>
>> http://science.yourdictionary.com/field
>>
>> field
>>
>> "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction
>> of a force,
>> such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged
>> object, that would
>> act on a body at any given point in that region. "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/8/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>> From: Bruno Marchal
>> Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24
>> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>
>> Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories
>> quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical.
>>
>>
>> This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields"
>> are not physical?
>> It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic
>> field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference.
>> Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in
>> which "particles" become field singularities, but they have the
>> usual observable properties making them physical, even "material".
>> With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and
>> physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains
>> physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet
>> on what is directly accessible by measurement.
>>
>>
>> May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in
>> different sense.
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/7/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>> From: Bruno Marchal
>> Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56
>> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
>>
>>
>> On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>> Hi meekerdb
>>>
>>> Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are
>>> inconsistent
>>> if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical.
>>
>>
>> All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist
>> theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non
>> physical things with some class of physical phenomena.
>>
>> Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter
>> materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among
>> possible other things).
>>
>> Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist
>> ( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are
>> still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is
>> explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is
>> entirely "ontologically" justified in pure math).
>>
>> Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess
>> what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their
>> neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/6/2013
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>>> From: meekerdb
>>> Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42
>>> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi meekerdb
>>>
>>> Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and
>>> functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't
>>> materialists.
>>>
>>> So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism
>>> can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 1/6/2013
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>>> From: meekerdb
>>> Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09
>>> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>>
>>> Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma
>>> (such as materialism) any day.
>>>
>>> It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being
>>> dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved
>>> metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all
>>> immaterial.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date:
>>> 01/03/13
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> .
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> 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-
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> 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-
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> .
>>
>
> --
> 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
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> .
>

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
For more options, visit this group at