On Saturday, November 15, 2014 7:27:50 AM UTC, Peter Sas wrote: > > Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a > closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's head > to understand the mathematics :) > > I hope you don't mind answering some questions in advance. You wrote: > > Exactly. The source of the symmetry breaking is the action of an > >> observer. Symmetry is restored by considering all other observers out >> there in the "Nothing"-verse (more commonly called the Plenitude). >> > > This what I don't get: How can there already exist observers (or at least > one observer) prior to the symmetry breaking, given that it is this > breaking that turns zero-info into info? In other words: if you already > presuppose an observer, your Nothing is not absolutely nothing... it is an > observed nothing, but in my view we can't even presuppose an observer if we > want to answer Leibniz' question by starting from nothing... I admit there > is some paradox involved in imagining a 'situation' in which nothing > exists, not even an observer... we have to imagine a situation where we > ourselves do not exist... to some extent that's impossible of course... > after all, I have to exist in order to imagine my own non-existencee... so > some observer is always pressupposed (Kan would call this the > transcendental subject)... but in my view we can't let that presupposed > observer interact with the original nothing to cause symmetry > breaking....How do you think about this? > > On a more positive note, I like the idea that nothingness is perfectly > symmetrical.... If we define symmetry as remaining the same under > transformations, shouldn't we then say that nothing is the most symmetrical > entity, since nothing can change it? And if that is the case, then the fact > that nature becomes ever more symmetrical the more we delve into > fundamentals (ever more elementary particles and laws) suggests that we > ultimately arive at nothing since that's the most symmetric.... this is > speculative, of course, but there seems to be some logic to it... > > Peter >
I agree there is a connection and use that in my theory efforts too -- 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.
