On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to "interpret" the > mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune > from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build > bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of > the universe. > I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your critique, then I assume your critique is in trouble. > That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher > dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, > as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never > the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the > universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the > universe: this is cheating don't you think? > > No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. We don't "extract sapience" (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
