On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:23:32 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Craig, > > But how can elemental computation "arise out of even more primitive > sensory-motive qualities" and "supervene on an even more primordial > possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation" since > those seem to be human dependent attributes? >
They only seem to be human dependent attributes because we are human. If the cells and molecules our bodies are made of had no sensory capabilities, certainly there would be no reason to develop any such capabilities. What our immune system or digestive system does is far more important and complex than what humans primitively do in their environment. > > Aren't you confusing human mental MODELS of reality (to which your > comments might apply) with the actual human independent reality which human > minds make their internal models of? That seems like a much more reasonable > view of reality... > While human experience does model non-human experiences, I do not think that it makes sense to say that it is, itself a "model" of anything. There are experiences which are independent of human experience, but there are not necessarily any phenomena which are independent of all experience. As far as I can tell, there is no meaningful difference between a phenomenon which can never be detected or inferred in any way and nothingness or non-existence. If we are talking about local views of reality only, then sure, the experiences which our body tells us are other bodies or objects are indeed so alien to our own perception, on such wildly different scales, that figuratively we could consider our experience a model of the phenomenon, but literally there is no model, only a presentation of the relation of our own experience to others. Craig > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:05:15 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> Craig, >>> >>> I agree with your idea in one sense, that actually space and clock time >>> are just computational relationships between events, specifically the >>> dimensional aspects of those events, rather than the actual physical >>> background to events that is usually assumed. >>> >>> In my book on Reality, I point out the reasons why it's more reasonable >>> to assume that spaceclocktime is something that arises out of elemental >>> computational events in discrete fragments, rather than existing as a >>> fixed, pre-existing background to events. >>> >> >> I agree, except that I see elemental computation also as something that >> arises out of even more primitive sensory-motive qualities disentangling >> into localized fugues which precede even qualities of discreteness or >> linear sequence. >> >>> >>> The advantage of this approach is that it enables a conceptual >>> unification of quantum theory and GR; immediately resolves all quantum >>> paradoxes (which are paradoxical only with respect to the fixed, >>> pre-existing background space mistakenly assumed); and provides a clear >>> explanation of the source and necessity of quantum randomness. >>> >> >>> Strangely no one here seems interested in how this happens, even to >>> criticize it! >>> >> >> Yes, I am very familiar with the feeling ;) I have only a superficial >> understanding of QT and GR, so I wouldn't be the one to criticize >> technically. My objection is only that whatever primordial form or function >> can be conceived of as absolute must supervene on an even more primordial >> possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation. >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Edgar >>> >>> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:35:32 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:22:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Russell, >>>>> >>>>> No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are >>>>> EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would say that gravity and curved space are metaphorical rather than >>>> literal. The literal phenomenon is that the inertial frame of sensible >>>> external relations is what is being curved. It is literally the experience >>>> of stress - of seriousness and realism which is seen from the outside as >>>> exaggerated irreversibility and inevitability. Mass-energy is the public >>>> token which represents sensory-motive. Space/density is the dual of mass, >>>> time/duration is the dual of energy. >>>> >>>> Mass-energy doesn't produce anything except externalized reflections of >>>> phenomenal experiences. Gravitation and curved space describe the back end >>>> of the sensory-motor (not motive because its externalized) relations which >>>> are interphenomenal, automatic, and unattended on all frames but the >>>> primordial one. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You say "Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a >>>>> flat tangent space." >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying then that acceleration from a rising elevator is >>>>> "motion through curved space"? >>>>> >>>>> That was my original question but I don't know what your answer is >>>>> from your post.. >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:41:09 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>>> > All, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to >>>>>> gravitation. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Gravitation curves space. >>>>>> >>>>>> No - curved space generates the phenomena of gravitation. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is sometimes said that "matter curves space". >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So doesn't this mean acceleration should also curve space? If not, >>>>>> why not? >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a flat tangent >>>>>> space. >>>>>> >>>>>> > If not, doesn't that violate the Equivalence Principle? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >>>>>> Principal, High Performance Coders >>>>>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au >>>>>> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- 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.
