On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:21:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Craig, > > This seems crazy to me at least, as it seems to assume that reality was > somehow created so people could "appreciate it and participate in it". >
That would be crazy, but no, you are forgetting that nothing that I am talking about applies in any way to people. The hypothesis is about the relation of sense-motive, form-function, and matter-energy. No biology or human life is necessary. > To me that seems a few orders of magnitude less likely than e.g. P-time! > > I would turn this around and say that humans were created of the same > logical structure as a pre-existing human independent universe, and that is > why they CAN appreciate and participate. That, to my mind, is a much more > logical approach. > Obviously, sure. That's not what I mean though. I'm looking at 'logical structure' as being a meaningless term in the absence of some appreciation of logical form and participation in logical function. Logic has to make sense, but sense does not have to make logic or come from logic. > > And the fact that GR may be counter intuitive certainly does NOT imply any > other counter intuitive theory is somehow correct. I'm sure you'd agree > with that. > It doesn't imply any particular counter intuitive theory is correct, but it proves that being counter-intuitive is not a strike against it. To the contrary, counter-intuitive can sometimes be an indication of accessing a deeper and more far reaching level of sense making. > > And I'm surprised you consider GEOcentric astronomy somehow "ordinary > thinking". Perhaps you are still stuck in one of your block universe > incarnations from the early Middle Ages? > Geocentric astronomy was the ordinary thinking for most of human history, was it not? If it weren't for some counter-intuitive theories, it still would be the norm. Craig > > Edgar > > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:52:17 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, February 24, 2014 10:56:08 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> Craig, >>> >>> It's hard to understand how your view is self consistent. You still seem >>> to be assuming some unstated observer, which you deny, by claiming pattern >>> recognition, aesthetics, appreciation, participation must somehow precede >>> any ontological formulation. These are all aspects of how mind views >>> reality, rather than fundamental reality itself. >>> >> >> You are assuming that reality is something other than an aesthetic >> quality which is appreciated and participated in. They are no just aspects >> of how mind views reality, they are what creates the possibility of >> 'aspects' and 'views' to begin with. Forget about fundamental reality. >> Realism is a measure of correspondence among fictions. Reality is the >> subset of sense which records experience and organizes those records. >> >> >> >>> >>> For me at least, you need to clarify your thesis and try to state the >>> whole more simply and completely. As it is it seems fragmentary and >>> inconsistent, or at least backwards to ordinary thinking... >>> >> >> It is backwards to ordinary thinking, yes - like Heliocentric astronomy, >> general relativity, etc. >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:08:52 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:09:35 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Craig, >>>>> >>>>> How do you define "experiential phenomena" without invoking an >>>>> observer to experience them? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The same way that I would invoke 'material phenomena' or 'energetic >>>> phenomena' without an observer to experience them. We are only a >>>> particular >>>> kind of experience, so it is hard to say whether the nested quality of >>>> that >>>> experience that makes it seem as if we are some 'thing' observing from >>>> behind a face is more local to conscious animals than to experience itself. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Just something that COULD be experienced if an observer was there to >>>>> experience it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I get rid of the observer assumption altogether, or make it >>>> ambiguous. All experiences may have some degree of distinction between >>>> interior and exterior aesthetics, but only some experiences might >>>> constellate into a more formal narrative of observation. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In my book I define what I call Xperience as the computational >>>>> alteration of any information form (information forms being what makes up >>>>> the universe) and thus view all computations that make up the universe in >>>>> terms of the Xperiences of GENERIC observers. Human and biological >>>>> EXperience then becomes just a subset of the general phenomenon which >>>>> constitutes the universe. >>>>> >>>>> But I suspect your definition is something quite different? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually not so different, except that by using information forms as >>>> fundamental, you are choosing the third person, object view (forms and >>>> functions = patterns) without acknowledging the pattern recognition (= >>>> appreciation and participation) that must ontologically precede any >>>> particular formations. Computation is automation and unconsciousness. >>>> Forms >>>> and functions are like cliches or masks for the underlying sense >>>> experience. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:43:08 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:13:15 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes of course there can be motion or relations without an experience >>>>>>> if you mean a human experience. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I don't mean human experience. Not even biological experience, >>>>>> just experiential phenomena. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The only people who believe otherwise are a few comp and >>>>>>> intersubjectivists who believe nothing happened in the whole universe >>>>>>> before humans came along. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that there are any many genuine solipsists or >>>>>> anthropcentrists out there outside of religious fanatics, but the >>>>>> accusation that there are such beliefs out there is very popular. I'm >>>>>> talking about physics and ontology, it has nothing to do with biology or >>>>>> Homo sapiens. >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:39:45 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can there be any motion or relation without an experience in which >>>>>>>> a sense of motion or relation is literally encountered? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:37:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's one more theory from my book on Reality: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative >>>>>>>>> motion. They actually have to be different forms of the same thing >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> there to be mass-energy conservation, and different forms of relative >>>>>>>>> motion are what they are. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rest mass in this theory is just vibrational motion. It is >>>>>>>>> relative motion, but since this relative motion is so spatially >>>>>>>>> confined, >>>>>>>>> it appears the same to all external observers. It is equally relative >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> all observers, thus it appears absolute in having the same value >>>>>>>>> relative >>>>>>>>> to all observers. Thus rest mass is the same to all observers, even >>>>>>>>> though >>>>>>>>> it is actually relative motion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is somewhat similar to string theory's notion of particles as >>>>>>>>> vibrating strings. But in my theory the vibration itself is not the >>>>>>>>> particle and there is no need for extra dimensions. In my theory, the >>>>>>>>> vibration takes place in ordinary 3D space and represents only the >>>>>>>>> mass of >>>>>>>>> the particle. Only in 3D space is it interconvertible to other 3D >>>>>>>>> relative >>>>>>>>> motions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [In my theory particles themselves are composed of their particle >>>>>>>>> properties (not vibrating strings), one of which is mass-energy, but >>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>> another part of the theory I won't get into in this post.] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So in this theory the conversion of mass to energy is quite >>>>>>>>> simple. It's just the conversion of the equivalent amount of >>>>>>>>> vibrational >>>>>>>>> motion into either the relative linear motion of kinetic energy >>>>>>>>> and/or the >>>>>>>>> relative wave motion of EM energy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This theory neatly conceptually unifies all forms of mass and >>>>>>>>> energy, and the conversion of one form to another as simply the >>>>>>>>> conversion >>>>>>>>> of one form of relative motion to an equivalent amount of another. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All other forms of energy neatly conform to this explanation >>>>>>>>> including what we call potential energy which is really just an >>>>>>>>> accounting >>>>>>>>> trick. What we call potential energy is actually just some form of >>>>>>>>> blocking >>>>>>>>> (or impinging) energy from a system external to the system under >>>>>>>>> consideration. To just analyze the system itself, we imagine a >>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>> energy IN the system equivalent to the actual blocking energy outside >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> system. It just makes things easier to analyze. So potential energy >>>>>>>>> is not >>>>>>>>> a real form of energy, not a real relative motion, but an accounting >>>>>>>>> trick >>>>>>>>> to confine analysis to an isolated system when systems are not >>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>> energetically isolated from their environments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- 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.
