Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that >> seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste from a pdf. Can you >> open it in the Chrome browser? >> >> In this ontology, all of the known math ideas still work, and those >> that become known as discovered. The key is that they do not exist as >> independent entities that are some how separable from the observer. >> > > Well, there you have an assumption right there! (Did I mention Pythagoras? > A million schoolchildren know that his theorem is "separable from the > observer" because they had to be taught it.) > Yes, it is an assumption. Are those schoolchildren observers? Do they comprehend in some small way what a^2+b^2=c^2 represents? The point is that a representation of a thing is not the thing unless it IS the thing. Is a number merely a pattern of chalk on the blackboard? What about a different pattern of dots on a piece of paper, could it represent the same referent? Separability is a tricky and subtle concept... > > >> Representations require presentations, they must be rendered by a >> physical process to be perceived, understood, known, described, etc. >> > > I this is considered in some way significant, I assume there is some > confusion between the representation with the thing being represented. > What is the relation between the two? My proposition is that there is a relation between the category of Representations and the category of things being represented (or "objects"). This relation is an isomorphism but not always bijective. > > >> Knowledge is not considered to be some thing that is projected into >> our minds by some mysterious process (see the allegory of the Cave). >> > > This sounds like a straw man. Who has claimed such a thing? (apart from > the afoirementioned schoolchildren, who would, I am sure, think knowledge > was indeed being "projected into their minds by a mysterious process" !) > Do you have a theory of knowledge that you use? Would this one be OK? http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm Russell does not really answer the question... I am trying to wade through the ambiguity and point out that what ever the means that knowledge comes to pass there is both a physical process and a logical (mental?) process and these are not one and the same process. > > I'm afraid I am generally suspicious of people whose main aim is to show > that some other (often imaginary) view is wrong, rather than to attempt to > demonstrate why their view is likely to be correct. > I agree. I am trying exactly not to do that... > > >> It is the action of the brain to implement a mind that allows knowledge >> to come into being. >> > > So we assume, certainly. That doesn't stop us being able to hypothesise > that there are things "out there", though, and arguably with a certain > degree of success. > > >> A related way of thinking is found here in a paper by Zurek on >> decoherence: >> > > I'll have a look at that, but I don't have time for reading endless papers > so a precis is always appreciated! > >> >> http://cds.cern.ch/record/640029/files/0308163.pdf >> > My takeaway of the paper is that it argues for a Wheelerian "participatory" universe concept. A plurality of observers and the interactions amongst them constrain the content of observation. I see this as a defining the process that creates realities; realities are not defined by a priori fiat. > >> >> "This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a >> Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) >> fitness >> of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of >> the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment-induced >> superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create >> o spring { copies of the information describing the state of the system >> in that environment. I show that this ability to `survive and procreate' is >> central >> to effective classicality of quantum states. Environment retains its >> decohering role, but it also becomes a "communication channel" through >> which the state of the system is found out by the observers. In this >> sense, indirect acquisition of the information about >> the system from its environment allows quantum theory to come close to >> what happens in >> the classical physics: The information about a classical system can be >> "dissociated" from >> its state. (In the case of an isolated quantum system this is impossible >> { what is known >> about it is inseparably tied to the state it is in.)" >> >> Sounds like he's saying that we cause the world to decohere in a manner > that enables us to further our survival. Assuming that's possible, I > imagine it's quite likely. But anyway I'll have a look at the paper. > > Its a great article! > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King -- 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.
