Dear LizR,

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:55 PM, LizR <> wrote:

> On 16 January 2014 16:44, Stephen Paul King <>wrote:
>> Dear LizR,
>>    But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying. 
>> *Space
>> is completely a construction of our minds.* *There is no 3,1 dimensional
>> Riemannian manifold out there*. We measure events and our minds put
>> those together into tableaux that we communicate about and agree on,
>> because our languages, like formal logical system, force the results to
>> obey a set of implied rules. We formulate explanations, formulate models
>> and look for rules that the models might obey. Hopefully we can make
>> predictions and measure something...
> Yes, yes, and yes! (Provisionally.) But we do have to account for how that
> construction comes out, even so, and the model called SR indicates that it
> comes out very like the manifold, and behaves like it, and so on.

One thing that this line of thinking that I am pursuing implies, is that
systems what have different computational capacities will have differing
"realities". The best analogy/toy model to explain this is to consider an
electron and a human. Very different. What kind of "reality" would it
experience (assuming that consciousness is not something that emerges from
complexity, as per the hand waving arguments from material monist) as
compared to the reality that humans experience?

  My definition of a reality is dependent on the notion of communication...
I digress. The point is that a space-time manifold, mathematically speaking
is defined such that it can capture the notion of an observer whose "point
of view" and inertial frame can be varied in a continuous fashion. In this
way we can canonically make claims like: the "laws of physics" are the same
for all observers, and so forth. It need not be exactly like that. Nature
might not be so smooth and continuous... It just needs the allow for the
possibility of an observer in any situation that actually allows for
observers that can have experiences and that can communicate with other
observers.   If I cannot communicate with you, how would I really know what
your universe is really like?

> I have to change hats sometimes. In a debate on physics, I wear my
> relativistic hat (which can be worn at any angle) and insist that we take
> account of the space-time manifold. When we get on to metaphysics, of
> course, I switch to a possibly nonexistent, or at least illusory hat...

Sure! I do that too. I have a growing collection of hats. My philosophy
hat is the one that has the most signs of wear...

>>   I really really like Bruno's notion of an observer. If only we could
>> see eye to eye on the definitions of some other concepts... Such as that
>> Computation is an *action* or transformation, not a static "being".
>> Yes, well that is the eternal, or at least present, "presentism vs
> eternalism" debate. Us (provisional) eternalists can't see why
> you (provisional) presentists insist on there being a need for this
> mysterious change above and beyond what a block multiverse already
> provides. Comp is just the ultimate in emergent time (riding on the
> shoulders of giants like Newton and Einstein of course - which doesn't make
> it true, of course, but does mean that it should be seriously considered).

It might be possible that the debate is based on a false dichotomy. Maybe
presentism and eternalism are both wrong, based on a bad hypothesis of the
nature of time!

>  --
> 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
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit


Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to