On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel
(like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"?
I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable
lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense
contradict such deterministic law.
That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts
a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding
anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into
sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",
"Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all
primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-
Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-
No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a
question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of
machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a
matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the
I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be
anything more or less than sense.
This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what
is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable
feature like consciousness, etc.
To start from sense is like to start from God. This answers nothing
(even if there is a God).
On the contrary, comp explains 100% of matter, and 99,9% of sense, but
explain 100% of why it remains 0.01% of a necessary non comprehensible
aspect of the inside first person view.
Anyway, the solution is testable, so you should be happy that we might
I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with
the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of
explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year
and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon
recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as
parts of a "PHYSICAL World".
It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind
OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery
of the universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable
sense) makes possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and
capable of self-transformation, of those machines.
Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of self-
transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex,
but they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True
beauty, whether in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece,
introduces an experience which is literally unimaginable before it
appears. It is not self-transformation, but revelation of simple,
iconic presentations which relate to nothing but their own brand of
pleasure, and to the history of all beauty and pleasure. It has not
exterior truth which it mediates for, as we have proved with
commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product that has
nothing to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for
whatever we attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation.
My feeling is that you have a limited view on mathematics.
True, but that may be what is required. If you want to understand
what it all is, and don't have the math to fall back on, then you
have to think more deeply about the question. We need a limited view
Hmm.... That looks like obscurantism to me.
Computers are much better at it.
Today's computer have no view of mathematics at all. They have no
other view than the view of the universal person. If you want, they
are enlighten, and the hard thing is to incarnate them in the
terrestrial plane, in some relevant ways relatively to us.
You miss that quality and first person notion can be handled,
accepting some definition.
No, I think that you miss that they cannot be handled by any
On the contrary, I give a proof that they have no definition. Many
features of the introspective machines lacks definition, to begin by
because all definitions are already first person qualities. They are
perspectives on perspectives - sense making of sense making.
You seem to believe that there can be no third person account of an
axiomatic of the first person notion.
Right. Why would third person need an account of anything when first
person is already the only accountant?
Exactly. But again, that is a reason to appreciate the subtlety of
the Church-Post-Turing notion of machine.
That's a category error. Math must be 3p, but can talk about 1p, and
even seems to imply it, as the arithmetical 1p hypostases should
I think that's an illusion.
Well, just to the work.
Math's version of 1p is an empty light socket with a bulb drawn
If you say so ... (that's not an argument).
All references to 1p come from our minds
Anthropocentrism. (and no argument. You just restate your opinion)
- our generosity in sharing our awareness in whatever we look at
that seems to have a face, or does something that seems to require
knowing. In the proper light, all of these empty promises and paste
jewels will be exposed as the pathetic fallacy...a trompe 'loeil
that is as spectacular as any could ever be.
May be, but in absence of argument, I will continue to work on the
simpler hypothesis. At least that might lead to some "real" argument,
not based on a personal feeling, against comp. But up to now, thanks
to QM, comp is confirmed by the physical reality available to us.
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.