On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 8:07:49 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 7:40:14 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:40:34 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 4:20:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 2 Aug 2019, at 00:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote: 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > On 8/1/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>> >> This is the tour de force of the Theaetetus definition when applied 
>>>> in the Mechanist frame: it explains why machines are necessarily 
>>>> confronted 
>>>> with things which are not only not computable, but not representable in 
>>>> any 
>>>> third person way. 
>>>> >> The corresponding logic (the modal logic of [1]p, with [1]p defined 
>>>> by []p & p), i.e. S4Grz is a formal logic describing a non formalisable 
>>>> reality accessed by all (sound) machine. Yes, that is a (meta- tour de 
>>>> force, made possible tanks to Gödel completeness and Incompleteness 
>>>> theorem, together with Tarski un-definability of truth theorem  (and 
>>>> Scott-Montague un-definability of knowledge theorem). 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Qualia are non physical and non numerical, yet phenomenologically 
>>>> real and explained or “meta-explained”, like for consciousness. 
>>>> > 
>>>> > But this is not at all convincing.  Just because some things 
>>>> (reflective relations) are not computable by the prefect logic machine 
>>>> does 
>>>> not show they are models or instances of qualia. Qualia are perceptions 
>>>> for 
>>>> example, which are partly shareable. 
>>>>
>>>> We share only the number relations. Not the qualia itself. We only 
>>>> projects ours on others, when enough similar to us. 
>>>>
>>>> The machine qualia are not just non computable, they are non definable 
>>>> and obey to a logic of qualia known before we found it in the discourse of 
>>>> the machines.  They have a conical perceive field associated with them. A 
>>>> good paper is the paper on quantum logic by John Bell (not the physicists, 
>>>> but the logician). There are some mistake in that paper, but not relevant 
>>>> here. 
>>>>
>>>> Bell, J. L. (1986). A new approach to quantum logic. Brit. J. Phil. 
>>>> Sci., 37:83-99. 
>>>>
>>>> Bruno 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If qualia are not "number relations" then they must be substances on 
>>> their own.
>>>
>>> And what is substance that is (at least partly) non-numerical: matter.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Matter has its origin in either the condensate interaction of 
>> Goldstone-Higgs bosons or with strong asymptotic QCD. With the Goldstone 
>> bosons the degree of freedom of the scalar fields enters into a 
>> longitudinal degree of freedom in weak flavor changing or isospin fields or 
>> in fermions. With QCD the interaction is strong so there is no possible 
>> escape for a the massless gauge boson or gluon. So one can think of these 
>> as a situation where a massless particle is trapped in some small volume so 
>> from a large scale it appears to be a massive particle with a timelike 
>> direction. There really is not anything else to it.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>
>
> If *everything is matter* (against the idea that it's an illusion) then 
> matter doesn't have its origin in anything.  
>
> People who say there is matter and something else have to say exactly what 
> that immaterial "something else" is. There seems to be little "substance" 
> to the claim that there is something else that's not matter.
>
> @philipthrift
>

There is energy that by E = mc^2 has an equivalence to mass. However, the 
mass content of a particle or object is derived. The mass-gap of YM gauge 
fields such as QCD and the role of the Higgs condensate in effect derives 
the mass of particles at low energy. This is established physics.

LC 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8fe914b4-4fe7-4100-a811-a19014cf30cd%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to