Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 January 2014 02:22, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King >>> <stephe...@provensecure.com>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? >> > > Yes, it could. > > >> Separability is a tricky and subtle concept... >> > > Not from that example, that seems crystal clear! :-) > I am distinguishing the physical process and the representations; there > is not a one-to-one and onto map between the two. > >> >>> >>>> 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 would say the physical process instantiates the logical one. > And the logical process, at least, re-presents the physical process. We get a closed loop if we have full algebraic closure and a bijection between the two sides of the proverbial coin. > >>> 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... >> > > Good. We've had an example of that on this very forum recently, so I may > be a bit predisposed to react against such... (or maybe doing the same > thing myself, in a meta sort of way) > :-) > >>> >>>> 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. >> > > Well this is certainly *possible*. I mean, no logical contradiction > springs to mind. But one needs (as with comp) to start with a theory of > what an observer is, I imagine... > I really like Donald Hoffman's Interface theory's "agent" as the observer as an adjunct to Bruno's definition! http://youtu.be/dqDP34a-epI > > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 stephe...@provensecure.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
