On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:18:28 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Edgar, > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > Liz, > >> >> > > >> >> > Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving! > >> >> > > >> >> > The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of > reality. > >> >> > The > >> >> > problem is that you are denying the flow of time. > >> >> > >> >> Why is this a problem? How can you know for sure that there is a > flow > >> >> of time? Block universe hypothesis can explain how time would appear > >> >> to flow for each observer. > >> > > >> > > >> > Does it though, or does it just use emergence as a crutch? > >> > >> The way I see it I wouldn't even call it emergence. I imagine that all > >> the moments where I can be conscious are eternal. They belong to a > >> structure (block universe), and what we perceive as time is an aspect > >> of this structure. > > Hi Craig, > > Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm having a hard time keeping up > with the mailing list and even finding the threads I'm participating > in... > > > Right, but if you have the block already, why would you want an > "aspect", > > and how would that constraint be accomplished? > > > > What I'm looking at is not a structure of eternal possibilities, but an > > ongoing accretion of self-partitioning experience. It's made of > aesthetic > > novelty from which 'structure' (an aesthetic appreciation of experience > from > > a distance...slowed to appear static from some perspective) diverges. > > > >> > >> Imagine we are experiencing all the possible > >> moments, "eternally", right "now". > > > > > > I don't believe in 'possible' necessarily. What is 'now' possible is > > constantly new, but imposes constantly new constraints as well. "We" are > not > > only experiencing all of the moments that have been experienced, but > "we" > > *are only* the ongoing experience of them. This is not to say, > obviously, > > that we personally experience all that has been experienced, because I > think > > that experiences are constrained into tunnels of insensitivity. > > I'm mostly ok with what you're saying here, but I meant something > slightly different by "we". I meant the set of all first person > experiences of everybody. What do you mean by tunnels of > insensitivity? >
If your "everybody" includes non-human and non-biological first person experiences as well, then we agree. If you take that further, however, and see that there is nothing else that can exist besides those experiences, and their exteriorized reflections within each other, then you are getting to the full MSR hypothesis. The tunnels of insensitivity are what and how each first person experience objectifies all others, as other qualities of sense, including object, machines, archetypes, symbols, and ideal truths. The reason that I am not you is that we are each experiences which are nested deeply within other ongoing experiences - on the level of individual, animal, organism, substance, etc. > >> > >> Would things appear any difference > >> from the perspective of any of these moments? My point is just that > >> this hypothesis is consistent with observed reality. > >> > >> Do you find this idea incompatible with multi-sense realism? > > > > > > Yes, it's very close. The key though is seeing that 'appear', > 'perspective' > > and 'aspect' are actually the nature of sense, not of anything else. The > > block of possibilities does not need to be there once we relocate these > > functions within sense itself. It's kind of like Relativity's 4D mollusk > but > > from the inside out. We are pushing the mollusk into dimensionalized > > alphabets, but its metaphorical; the mollusk has no exterior, it has no > need > > for containment of fixed indexes of possibilities. It's all ad hoc, but > > weighted by the inertia of participation and perception. > > > >> > >> > >> > Wouldn't it make > >> > more sense for there to be no 'observation' at all? > >> > >> Yes, even with no block universe, in my opinion. > > > > > > I agree. Unless we define the universe as 'observation' (really > > participation) from the start. > > > >> > >> > Block universes need not > >> > have any consciousness. What would be the point? > >> > >> I wish I knew, but I feel the question also applies to non-block > >> universes. > > > > > > Exactly. Which leaves us with the option of turning the whole thing > inside > > out and seeing the universe as the telling of the story of storytelling > - > > fundamentally, physically, ontologically, realistically. That is the > fabric > > of eternity - not uni-verse but universal weaving, diverting and > reverting > > sensory experience. > > I don't understand half of what you say but I recognise some themes > that I can agree with, namely the fundamental importance of > self-reference. I suspect that part of what you're trying to do is > doomed to failure because you're trying to communicate the > non-communicable. > It may be non-communicable, but we can communicate better about why it is not communicable, and even perhaps why metaphor makes communication of them redundant. Sometimes I wonder if the alchemists and mystics had it right in using codes and symbols, since those who aren't ready to understand it won't be able to even if it's written in English. Maybe using art is less annoying to those who will (by necessity of their tunnel) only project their own insensitivity onto it. Craig > Telmo. > > > Craig > > > >> > >> > >> Telmo. > >> > >> >> > >> >> This doesn't prove that block universe > >> >> hypothesis are correct, but they cannot be dismissed that easily > >> >> either. > >> >> > >> >> Now you could argue that this is counter-intuitive, but I would > remind > >> >> you that nature doesn't care. Our intuition is just a bunch of > >> >> heuristics evolved to deal with a very narrow set of survival > >> >> scenarios. > >> >> > >> >> > For equations to compute (not just describe) reality, there must > be > >> >> > active > >> >> > processor cycles. There is simply NO way around that... > >> >> > >> >> I wonder. > >> >> > >> >> Telmo. > >> >> > >> >> > Edgar > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can > emerge > >> >> >> from > >> >> >> something static" ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation > >> >> >> describing > >> >> >> something changing. Change is by definition things being > different > >> >> >> at > >> >> >> different times. If you map out all the times involved as a > >> >> >> dimension, > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> will naturally get a "static" universe, just as putting together > all > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> moments making up a movie gives you a reel of film - but only > from a > >> >> >> "God's > >> >> >> eye perspective". This is the perspective science gives us, the > >> >> >> perspective > >> >> >> given by using equations and models and maps to describe reality; > it > >> >> >> isn't > >> >> >> the world of everyday experience, which (at best) views those > >> >> >> equations > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> so on from within (assuming for a moment they are so accurate as > to > >> >> >> be > >> >> >> isomorphic to reality). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Obtaining change from the static view used by science is a > >> >> >> non-problem, > >> >> >> and has been since Newton published his Principia. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There are problems with comp, of course, like the "white rabbit" > >> >> >> problem. > >> >> >> Does anyone have any new views on the real problems, rather than > >> >> >> worrying > >> >> >> about straw men? > >> >> >> > >> >> > -- > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > 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. > > > > -- > > 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] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected]<javascript:>. > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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.
