On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > The 2 extra dimensions are timelike. Therefore Ramanujan's 24 applies to only the space dimensions. I have always thought that this may mean that in 4D-spacetime, the time dimensions are fundamentally different from the space dimensions, Richard > > > > > 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 [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. >> > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
