On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:09, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09 Apr 2014, at 20:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience
to beg a question in metaphysics
Richard: I do that all the time.
Where? I am not sure you ever did this. I am not talking on the
personal 1p reference which influences our choice of axioms for
example, but on the use of the personal reference in an argument,
like when people say "it is obvious that ...", or "God told me...",
etc.
My bad. I thought you meant personal experience
I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string
theory that result in a metaphysics that explains personal & second
hand experience.Here is an example:
I usually forget to mention that the existence of a Metaverse is
motivated by its solution of the hierarchy problem in the Standard
Model where the force of gravity is small compared to any of the 3
gauge forces. The hypothesis is that gravity is free to propagate in
the Metaverse, but the gauge forces are confined to the brane of the
Universe. Harvard Physics Professor Lisa Randall was the leading
investigator that established the need for a Metaverse.
I have heard about this. It is seducing, but as a non expert I have no
means to judge the plausibility.
A theory for the properties of the Metaverse may be found by
Dimensional Analysis, even simpler than what I learned as an
undergrad mech engr major.
Occum's Razor dictates that we start from a total of 26 dimensions.
Really? is it not 0?(like in comp). Or at least 24, Ramanujan
favorite number! Why 24 + 2?
Following some theoretical results derived from string theory, we
split those dimensions into 12 for the Universe and 14 for the
Metaverse.
We factor into this dimensional analysis that superstring theory
comes in modules of 10 dimensions. In this context it turns out that
2 of the 12 Universe dimensions form the toroidal surface of the
Universe, and the other 10 turn into 4D-spacetime plus a fine fluid
of 6d-SGC* particles that permeate the Universe..
So what happens to the 14 Metaverse dimensions. Again according to
Occum's Razor we extract a 10d-module that is the blueprint for how
the Universe forms a 4D-spacetime and 6d-SGC* particles. So the
Metaverse also has a 4D-spacetime and a fluid of 6d-SGC* particles,
according to Occum, which makes interaction between the cosmos and
the meta-cosmos so much easier.
That leaves 4 dimensions for the structure of the Metaverse
corresponding to the 2 dimensions that formed the torus that is the
Universe.
Again and again Occum Rules. The structure of the Metaverse is
Cartesian.
The conjecture is that the 4D-meta-structure includes a 3D-space
corresponding to the Metaverse 3D-space at some nominal time that is
fuzzy because of SR&GR. But that slice of space is small compared to
the total 4D-structure volume.
Again invoking Occum, the 4th structure dimension is timelike. It is
a space dimension containing a measure or scale of time going into
the past.
This 4th meta-dimension may be infinite in both the past and future.
Or according to Luria it may have a beginning, and perhaps even an
end.
Furthermore the conjecture is that the results of every physical
particle interaction (in the Metaverse including in each embedded
universe) is recorded. Nature has a memory. Not known what Occum
thinks about that.
Richard Ruquist1448
*SGC: String Gas Cosmology (Brandenberger http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3247)
I read it but quickly stumble on many things ... as you know I come
from the other end. Also, when I read that literature, I ask myself
even more why you seem to want a collapse or a unique reality. String
theory seems to make this worse, it seems to me, like getting a 10^500
type of multiverses, with comp, I think it can be three types of
multiverse/mulltidream, being naive on the material arithmetical
hypostases.
The advantage of the classical comp approach, is that we can
"see" (mathematically) why the truth always expands the modalities,
and this still obeying laws. We get natural candidates for machine
quanta and qualia, with a non trivial, but arithmetically complete (at
the propositional level) theories. The quanta part is testable. And I
don't think string theory would be a problem for meeting comp's
consequences, unless you introduce some ad hoc self-selection principle.
String theory smells number theory. It is consistent with my hobby
(non professional) hope (not uncommon) that the zero of the
Riemann zeta function describes the spectrum of some universal quantum
chaotic operator, perhaps operating on some gas of strings.
I don't insist on this because I don't want the number theorists
finding physics before the theologians. If that happens we might get
one or two millennia more of person elimination, conceptually if not
practically.
Well, you might need to add some grains of salt, I guess you see this.
Bruno
?
Looks like the thunderous silence of Vimalakirti :)
Bruno
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09 Apr 2014, at 03:18, Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote:
I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking
back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998:
"I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in
what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We
are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave
moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal
fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a
knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's
about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience
terror'".
Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it
is hard to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary
understandably.
Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough
dreams... However, this dream had a particular intensity and
feeling of importance that made it stand out as not "just another
dream". A Big Dream in other words. This subjective impression
proves nothing of course, but strengthens my personal conviction.
Different standards of evidence and different epistemologies
necessarily apply to the individual and the collective.
Yes, and admitting mechanism and the classical theory of knowledge,
we can undersatnd that the machine are already confronted to the
different logics between the individual, the collective, and also
the difference between the provable, the knowable, the observable.
For a long time, science did not "believe in" lucid dreams - it
took some rigorous and repeatable laboratory studies to prove the
phenomenon.
The first doing an experience showing their "verifiable" existence
was a parapsychologist, and he published in a review of
parapsychology, which was of course ignored, probably for that
reason, by the "mainstream".
But anyone who has had a lucid dream simply knows they happen, and
could know it long before scientific method could catch up.
Yes. And I can imagine that the ocular motor neurons would have
been inhibited too, and the lucid dream would have stayed ... in
parapsychology.
Certainly one should expose one's own beliefs to critical
scrutiny, including the possibility of coincidence in this case,
but my point is that is sometimes both rational
OK.
and correct
That is ambiguous.
to entertain beliefs outside of the established body of scientific
evidence.
The scientific evidence is always theory dependent, and all
theories are false, at different degrees, so, well, it is certainly
sound to entertain beliefs outside the "scientific evidence".
And 1500 times so in fields where we tolerate the authoritative
argument, like theology or health to give two examples.
I think that is especially the case in the area of these boundary
experiences of human consciousness which seem inextricably bound
up with meaning, and therefore extremely difficult to replicate.
For example the well-known phenomenon of people experiencing
strange phenomena at the moment of a loved one's death at some
other location. There are some well-documented historical examples
of this, but a scientific study would be extremely hard to carry
out - you could take thousands of subjects and ask them about any
experiences they had at the time of a relative's death, but the
results would always be subject to doubt as a mere collection of
anecdotes. Feynman of course tells the story of suddenly thinking
of his grandmother, and then nothing happening to her! - and notes
how, if she had died, he could have been tempted to take this
experience for clairvoyance, but instead he forgot about it - or
would have if he hadn't thought about the implications. But what
he doesn't say is whether this thought of his grandmother was
particularly forceful, strange or compelling. What usually
convinces people that an experience is more than just coincidence
is this compelling quality - as in my dream, it's not experienced
as just another thought in the random, fleeting play of the mind.
But how to measure such qualia? (And this is not to say that there
aren't also many cases where a true coincidence is taken for more
than that - maybe Liz's experience is an example, we cannot know.)
No, we cannot know. We can experience with mind altering substance,
but we are automatically biased by our own theories. The similarity
in the reports still provide information, but it is hard to
interpretet and quite theory dependent.
yet, such experience can be useful to debunks sub-theories
(assumption, presumption) we were not aware of.
It would be nice to make a pool on all people having a dream
diary, but dreams of catastrophes are not so rare, and the
possibly convincing clues will be in the details.
That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've
become convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the
outer world. Although I'm agnostic on the "comp" question, it
seems to me to be not at all precluded by comp (though the
question might be: what *would be* precluded by comp? It seems to
permit much more than it precludes).
I am agnostic on comp too, to be sure. (Well, comp precludes not
being agnostic!).
Comp (+ Theaetetus) precludes any physics not given by the S4Grz1,
or Z1*, or X1* logics. So we have to do the math, as I try to do
in the modal or math thread.
Question: and is any physics not precluded compulsory? It seems to
me it must be.
That is what I was saying. Physics is so compulsory that all
universal machine believing in enough induction principle "lives"
the physical, which instantiations will particularize through the
differentiation of the initial consciousness flux (locally
determined by universal numbers, and globally (below the subst
level) determined by *all* universal numbers). Formally we get
three physical type of realities, each in the modal systems
mentioned above.
I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the
intervention of a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your
rational self. The numinous is knocking!
The numinous knocks all the time, it is just a question of being
open to it, I think. By the gap between the x and x* logics, with
x being used for the logics above, I could argue that the honest
introspective machine can hardly miss it, but it is not well seen
in our culture, as most people referring to it have been called
heretics and banished or worst, for a long time. We are just not
modern, nor rational about it, I'm afraid.
I completely agree. But sometimes, at least from a Jungian
perspective, it knocks louder. And when it gets loud enough,
failure to open the door can actually make you sick.
I think you should open the door but only as long as you can
maintain the doubt in *all* theories, and as long as you never try
to use a reference to an experience to beg a question in metaphysics.
You can use reports and suggest interpretation/theories. If not you
get pseudo-science or pseudo-mysticism, or paranoïa (whose most
typical symptom is public certainty, ... sometimes contagious,
which can lead to genocide notably).
Bruno
Bruno
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:00:09 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming
to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a
bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I
sent him away, saying "no thanks we don't indulge" or words to
that effect.
I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can
recall.
A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this
house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot
longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the
"Watchtower" and a personal message from God. I sent him away,
but ... I was a bit shaken.
Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about
a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which
has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a
"worry dream".
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it?
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
