Dear Bruno,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19 Jan 2014, at 21:09, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Bruno, > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 18 Jan 2014, at 22:52, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It only >> seems to work because we imagine tem as existing out there and subject to >> our inspection from the outside. As if we are God or something... This very >> idea is the problem, there is no God's eye view that can map faithfully to >> any 1p view we might have. >> >> >> In which theory? >> > > It is an assumption that is smuggled into science and math. An unjustified > extension of the 1p to cover all of the universe. Laplace's Demon is a good > example of this. > > > That does not give a theory. > I am not attempting to define a formal theory. I am looking for the ontological ideas and assumptions; those things that are believed to be true - like axioms but informal ones- that go into the thinking. In the case of Laplace, it was assumed that it was possible for an entity to exist that would have the entire universe laid out before it in its full spatial and temporal extent. We know a few more facts than did Laplace. The speed of light is finite, the energy of interactions is quantized, measurement requires interactions and "work". Unless we are going to assume the existence of entities that are not subject to these limitations and restrictions, then our assumptions about what the universe is and how our knowledge of it is constructible needs to be corrected of errors, such as those of Laplace. Are we to assume that supernatural entities can communicate with us? Many people actually do! As a student philosopher of science, I see ontology as extremely important as the foundation upon which our notions of physics are built. If our explanations of the universe assumes impossible entities from the start, the results our reasoning will be rubbish, G.I.G.O. principle, not matter how correct out formalism may be. > > > > >> You are just communicating a personal conviction or feeling. >> > > Sure, but I think you can see for yourself what its error is. It is most > difficult to question assumptions that we believe to be true and have no > simple physical falsification. > > > The problem is not the assumption, as you seem to defend comp (unlike me). > the point is the validity of a reasoning. By definition of validity, that > does not depend of the truth or falsity of the assumptions. > Indeed! My complaint is not comp's reasoning, it is the assumptions that it is built on. It assumes what is known to be impossible; that Becoming can emerge from Being. My argument is that it is easy to show the converse case: how Being can emerge from Becoming. Thus I argue that the Perfection of Platonia emerges from the infinity of temporal processes and interactions. Numbers become eternal, static and perfect in the limit of all possible manifestations of them. We can avoid all the problems of actual infinities and the problem of time, etc. if we do this. Your result would still obtain and the solution to the arithmetic body problem would appear. > > > > > >> >> I am OK with that, but not if you oppose it to pretend that there is a >> flaw in a piece of science. >> > > It is a flaw in the assumed ontological base of science, the idea that 1) > observation is not interaction, > > > This is not assumed anywhere in the proof. > Not explicitly, no. But it is there. Almost every time a verb is used in the UDA it implies some interaction somewhere. > > > > > > 2) that it can occur passively and with no thermodynamic cost -exploration > of Maxwell's demon proved otherwise-, > > > > ? > > > > 3) can be arbitrarily extended. > > > ? > > > > 3) is easily disproven using arguments from topology. Can a single sheet > cover a 3-manifold? No! > > > ? > > > > > >> You must use your personal conviction to isolate the flaw. Not just >> repeat that there is one. >> > > I have told you what the flaw is that I see. > > > Not at all. Sorry. No pint at all made in the UDA is addressed. Your > points here are fuzzy, and seems to criticize comp, which is not the matter > of the debate. > I am criticizing the tacit assumptions that are brought into the UDA from our language and ways of thinking, not the UDA itself. The idea that interaction is a passive event, for example, the communication between Doctor and patient, the inspection of the infinite set of possible substitutions levels. Any act requires WORK to be performed. We cannot blithely ignore thermodynamics. > > > > > You have no explanation for multiple minds in interaction. > > > That is contingent. It would be a refutation if it was "you cannot have an > explanation for ...", but this is something that you should prove then. > And then we do get a first person plural, and all what needs to be done, > is to see if the material hypostases get the physical laws as we know them. > And that has become pure math, in this comp frame. > I do not understand how one obtains a plurality of entities, each of which can overcome its default solipsism and interact with others. How do numbers, which are the epitome of static entities, "act" in any way? I argue that they cannot unless they are taken as representations of physical actions. But to do this we would have to reject AR. You do not wish to do this. AR is the problem. > > Anyway, the fact that some theory does not explain something is NOT a > proof that a reasoning done in that theory is invalid. > > I am not arguing that the reasoning is invalid. I am arguing that the assumptions - those things and concepts which are carried into the reasoning - are invalid; at least the one that eternal static entities can "act". > Bruno > > > > > Descartes himself neglected to consider how minds would interact. If he > had, he would have corrected his nonsense. > > > >> >> Bruno >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. >> > > > > -- > > Kindest Regards, > > Stephen Paul King > > Senior Researcher > > Mobile: (864) 567-3099 > > [email protected] > > http://www.provensecure.us/ > > > “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 > immediately.” > > -- > 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. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “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 immediately.” -- 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.
