> On 21 Jul 2020, at 20:14, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > I recently came across a paper by C. W. Rietdijk (who is perhaps most famous > for using special relativity to prove the existence > <https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument> of a > pre-determined, timeless, physical reality) in 1966.
Actually, I did believe in that type of argument. What makes me doubt a little bit is the book by Palle Yourgrau (A world without time, the forgotten legacy of Gödel and Einstein). It seems to me that Einstein was well aware that SR implies the dispersion of “objective physical time”, but the book explains that with GR, Einstein was not convinced about that time disparition from physics, and that Gödel show him that this is the case, with his circular time solution of Einstein GR equation. So that remains a bit of a mystery for me. Should reread Palle Yourgrau. Amusingly, Einstein found an inconsistency in the US constitution, and plaid that it made the US possibly becoming a dictatorship. I strongly disagree with Gödel on this, but I did not expect a Senate able to dismiss second hand information as second hand, and then to dismiss the first hand information (in its impeachment acquitting vote). The US constitution is very good, including in preventing a dictatorship, unless those in power violate it systematically, which is what Trump and its acolytes do since 2016... > > As it turns out, he was active and publishing into his 90s, and in 2018 > published: > > "Four-dimensional reality continued. The implications of the block universe > for the origin of matter, consciousness and a possible afterlife. The > Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox and its role in four dimensions" > > > I have found much of it to be fascinating and also in line with Bruno's > theories. OK. I will pinpoint on the major differences. > For example, some excerpts: > > In the beginning, there was only truth, logic and their relation. No possible > reality can do without them. > > OK. Technically, truth is ambiguous, and logic is not enough. We have to postulate at least one universal machinery (like elementary arithmetic for example). No possible reality having computers is possible without postulating one universal system/machinery. > As we move from a 3D to a 4D theory of the Universe, > … and this presuppese number and geometry, which actually have to be derive from there-supposed universal machinery. > several crucial questions need to be asked and answered. One of the most > important of those questions concerns the creation of matter. In this > section, we deal with this question and ask ourselves: Was matter actually > created and how real is it? > > In 4D a Big Bang is both inconceivable and irrelevant; a 4D universe is > static—there are no changes in the time direction, therefore a transition > from a Universal Void to the existence of matter cannot be. In both 3D and > 4D, we must start from the irrefutable fact that “something” must have always > been there, and we believe this to be the laws of nature. > With Mechanism, it is better to assume a universal machinery which is as much unlike a physical or geometrical reality as possible, so that when we get the physical laws, we are not accused of cheating… Here the stance is quite physicalist, and directly assume some matter, and makes explicit that it has to be assumed, and so this matter is judged to be primitive, and, as you know, that leads to NON-Mechanism. > Voltaire’s argument about the existence of God (No watch without a > watchmaker) begs the question who created the watchmaker, unless we assume > that the laws of nature and the universe created themselves. It is our firm > belief that the Pythagorean theorem needs not be created, nor the fact that > the circumference of a circle is 3.14… times the diameter; the laws of nature > and the collection of truths, values and their interrelations are primordial > and have always existed. > With Mechanism, we simply cannot assume real numbers. > The fundamental stuff of the Universe in 4D consists of logic, mathematics > and natural law, which of course exist and always have existed. It seems > impossible to eliminate truths, values, etc., from the Universe. Note that in > a deterministic conception, there is only one universe. This is the universe > that we see; a static 4D universe which is not void. > > With Mechanism, analysis and physics must be derived without assuming a physical universe. Mechanism is more idealistic, somehow, even if the fundamental reality is not idealistic at all, yet non physical either. > The laws of nature—which have always existed > Yes, but only in the mind of the machine. The solidity comes from the fact that all machine finds the same physics in their head. The laws of nature always existed in some sense, but are logical consequence of elementary arithmetic. > —imply that intelligence has always existed and has always been present, with > its correlates “experience” and “Aha-erlebnis,” perceivable to man here and > now. It would seem that intelligence must have preceded everything, but in > our search for the origin of matter, we cannot content ourselves by simply > stating that (3D) matter is produced by intelligence. It is possible from the > concept of completed intelligence (viz., intelligence including experience > and the Aha-erlebnis), to create the deceptive suggestion of the existence of > matter, experienced in a collective dream, dreamed by living, intelligent > beings. > With mechanism, the physical reality (the collective dream) emerges from the first person (plural) statistics on all dreams, by all universal machines. > This is what we consider to be consciousness. The recognition of the > differences between patterns is an Aha-erlebnis. > > The elementary particles as we know them form patterns, including very > implicit or hidden patterns. The marker points and their patterns are the way > Intelligence orders all that exists in the world, including feelings, > thoughts, colors, sounds, etc. > Here, Mechanism is more explicit, and provides the mathematical theories of the vertical differences between truth, provable, knowable, observable and sensible, + the horizontal true/proved differences, with explicit differences between the mathematics of quanta and the mathematics of qualia, and where this comes from. > We hypothesize that the microparticles in the Universe form Universal > patterns, or abstract, theoretical points that answer to the laws of nature, > formulas and logical principles; the common coordinate points in the > Universe. These points form a kind of skeleton of the grand pattern of the > collective “dream;” a blueprint or map of the Universe. > > Only by assuming NON-Mechanism can this makes sense. With Mechanism, this blueprint is first person plural pattern, involving infinitely many dreams. So, all this go in the right direction, but is not enough “idealist” about the “physical reality” to be coherent with Mechanism. Bruno > > Jason > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhdA%3DBFmb-_DwR0fULnE2H86Dqz2-7bJTFZUtLXXg9yuw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhdA%3DBFmb-_DwR0fULnE2H86Dqz2-7bJTFZUtLXXg9yuw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/3243F3C9-65DA-40BC-B43C-622FB5ABD25F%40ulb.ac.be.
