On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the > > mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind > > of underlying conputation) >
Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why 3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic arithmetic takes some work). Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum of distance. Mathematics is two distinctly different (opposite) things: 1) A private experience of imagined sensory symbol-figures which accompany a motive of quantitative reasoning. 2) A collection of public objects interact in a logical way, without any private representations, as a consequence of the physics of multiple rigid bodies. The problem is that comp seduces us into a shell game whereby when we look at math 'out there' (2), we smuggle in the meaning from in here (1), and when we look at meaning in here (1) we misattribute it to the blind enactment of a-signifying motions among neurophysical objects. The only difference between the colors and feelings of private experience and the structures and functions which we study in science is that the colors are experienced first hand and are therefore described with the full complement of human sense (misleading and conflicting though it may be). We assume that the world outside of our minds runs on math not because it actually does, but because our awareness of it is a grossly reduced, indirect logical construction. > > > > Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of > > the colored reality is a product of the mind. > Not a product exactly, more like an induct. Same with every measurement ever made though. It's all an induction of our experience (plus the experiences of all of the objects and substances, times and conditions involved). > > > > The quantum and relativistic mathematics lacks a corresponding qualia > > of the mind that make them intuitive and "real". They are efective and > > predictive, but we can not make it apparent and intuitive in our > reality. > > > > Right. That's because QM assumes Math (1) is present in Math (2). It isn't. You need sensory-motor participation, i.e. afferent perception and efferent participation as a fundamental base before quantum to make any kind of realism with it. Craig > I agree! > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3eq5Nzab1ikJ. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.