On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King
>> 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.
SR, GR and QM do not require, and some say even prohibit, a "view from
nowhere <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere>". Thus my claim
follows. SR, GR and QM all require some selection of a frame or basis pr
"point of view" that induces a bias. Laplace and the Newtonians and, I
argue, the Platonist assume that the ontological ground can be defined to
have some particular set of properties (and not any other) without any
explanation of how it is necessarily so; like Bruno with his AR.
>> 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.
Ah, but neglecting the "interpretation" and its selection bias - as if it
did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out.
> 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.
Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering of
events. People like Renata
Knuth <http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881> have some pretty good arguments
against the idea that space-time is something that "we are embedded in".
This "fishbowl" or "container" conceptualization of space-time is just
another version of the Laplacean vision...
My wording involving sapience was bad/unhelpful....
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> 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.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.