On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:27:50PM -0800, 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: >
No - it's a good question. Hopefully my answer makes sense. > 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? > You are imagining things temporally, which is inappropriate here. Once we conflate Nothing and Everything - that is the point of the discussion about the mathematical notion of duality - then it is clear that the Everything contains observers, observing their own points of view, since the Everything, well, contains everything (at least every possible thing). Whilst Nothing (and Everything) is perfectly symmetric, the observers' points of view are not. The act of observation has broken the symmetry. The symmetry breaking is "spontaneous", for same reason as Bruno's FPI is random. Thus my mantra, which has become something of a quotable quote: "Something is the inside view of Nothing". Now this might seem quite different to the physicists notion of spontaneous symmetry breaking - eg the direction of the magnetic field when a ferromagnetic material is cooled below it's Curie point - but if you think in Multiverse terms it is the same thing. The act of observing the magnetic material means the magnetic material is in some direction. Somewhere else in the Multiverse, there is an observer seeing the magnetic field in the opposite direction. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
