On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:05:38 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 2/13/2013 5:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > [SPK wrote: ]'reality = best possible simulation". >> > > I just realized how to translate that into my view: "Reality = making the > most sense possible." Same thing really. That's why I talk about multisense > Realism, with Realism being the quality of maximum unfiltered sense. Since > sense is subtractive, the more senses you have overlapping and diverging, > the less there is that you are missing. Reality = nothing is missing (i.e. > only possible at the Absolute level), Realism = you can't tell that > anything is missing from your perceptual capacity/inertial frame/simulation. > > Hi Craig, > > There is something else that we must discuss in what you wrote! I > think that "you can't tell that anything is missing from your perceptual > capacity/inertial frame/simulation" has nothing to do with realism at all. > We get that illusion of completeness precisely because the necessary > conditions for having Sense are met. (This is part of the fixed point > stuff.) >
If all there is is sense though, then there can never be an illusion of completeness, just a comparison of one experience to another in which one is found to be lacking realism. If all there is in the universe is a single flicker of light for a millisecond, then that is the only reality. With sense, illusion is just a conflict among different sensory frames and applications of motive. There is no realism beyond that, but no realism beyond that is necessary. > If you are conscious at all at any level you will automatically not > be able to percieve any 'holes' or inconsistencies in your personal 1p > 'Sense of all that is", > We perceive holes all the time. When we look at an optical illusion, our visual channel of sense seems to present an experience which conflicts with our cognitive channel of sense (understanding). It happens through time too. We learn something that makes us rethink our previous understandings, etc. That's kind of the main thing that goes on in our life is finding out about our gaps, either gracefully or the hard way as regrets. > as othe Sense that one has must be have relational closure to some degree, > otherwise we have at least one instant infinite regress in one's dictionary > of concept relations. > Sure, there are millions of relational closures, and they're nested within each other too. Everything that we can recognize is a closed presence, but when we discover new frames of references, previously closed relations can change or seem to break. > This reasoning is a key part of my motivation to claim that 'reality', for > any single observer (up to isomorphisms) must be representable as a Boolean > algebra: it must be that all of its propositions (when considered as a > lattice of propositions) are mutually consistent. This mutual consistency > does not come for free, pace Bruno, but is dependent on the resources > available to compute the Sense content. One must have a functioning > physical brain to think... > I don't think that sense is never computed, it is only experienced. Computation is only a strategy for organizing sense in public/public interactions - which is the essence of realism. The consistency of propositions for a single observer is like perspective. If something moves closer to your face, it appears larger. That is not because something is being computed locally and presented as an illusion, it appears larger because that is the sensory content of the experience which best reflects all of the conditions involved. This is a hybrid of private and public conditions, just as your sink's supply of water is a hybrid of local plumbing conditions and distant aqueducts. Because of the unity of sense, the mutual consistency does come for free, rather it is the insulation, the gaps, the resistance which cannot be maintained for free because they are ultimately disequilibrium. > A digression: This universal restriction of Boolean algebraic > representability on observable content seems to back up that @$$_*)&# Noam > Chomsky's universal grammar "law" but I think that the Piraha' people's > language <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language> points out > that there can be non-recursive 'bubbles' in a overall global network of > recursive relations. (Chomsky's idea that language is causally determined > by a genetically determined capacity seems to be the distilled essence of > rubbish, in my not so humble opinion btw.) > Yeah I agree that language doesn't follow genetics - it's the other way around if anything. I think you're right for associating algebra with realism, because it pertains to functions among public bodies (which is a big part of realism). I would say though that most of sense does not have to do with algebra or geometry or arithmetic at all. Math and physics are what sense sees when it hides from itself. Craig > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.