> "Spatially separated"? By how many meters?
It is a good question. Let us start with it. So a person sees red
flowers as it has been shown in the colored part of the picture. The
person sees the red flowers outside of him. However, could we say that
the person sees the red flowers in the same position where the physical
object is located? How would you answer this question? You changes in
the picture do not give a clear answer to this question.
Evgeny
Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:
On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> That is not at all what Rovelli says. You still see red, but you have
> learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in your
eye
> (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a).
I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have
attached a picture from David Gamez, Human and Machine Consciousness,
2018. Primary and secondary qualities are not essential, what is
important that manifest world (bubble of experience on the picture) is
spatially separated
"Spatially separated"? By how many meters?
from the external world (black and white part). Photons from red
flowers belongs to the external world but a person sees the red
flowers somewhere else.
Which is completely beside Rovelli's point. Rovelli is comparing two
models of the external world that are both compatible with the manifest
world. Your cartoon version should be:
The spacial separation of the two worlds sometimes is referred to as
the virtual world theory (Gamez's book is good illustration to this
end). This directly follows from what you have written - information
comes into the eyes and it does not come out. So the manifest world
that the person sees is completely separated from the external
physical world.
That's self-contradictory. If it's "completely separated" then
information cannot come in.
One could claim that the external world is still similar to the
manifest world as on the attached figure. Yet the main point of
Hoffman's book that evolution must produce an opposite result.
No. His point is not that that it's the "opposite" of
similar...whatever that would mean. His point is that it's not
identical and necessarily so in order that it serve natural selection.
But the scientific theory of he world must be consistent with the
manifest world...that's what empirical means.
Brent
Science is just common sense writ large and pursued rigorously.
So provided we believe in evolution we must say that the attached
picture is wrong. Rather we should talk about pic. 2.7 on the link
below - that is, about a thing in itself.
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-298-1/ch2.xhtml
Evgenii
Am 30.03.2021 um 03:29 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List:
On 3/29/2021 5:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Rovelli is a loop quantum gravitation maven. This is a very
ontological physics, and explains in part Rovelli's stance. The
though has occurred to me that maybe LQG states are the kernel of
some sort of target map. Either than or they are
epistemic/ontologically uncertain and in an epistemic setting target
map to zero.
LC
On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:05:33 PM UTC-5 use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli
suggest is eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but
red (b) (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists.
That is not at all what Rovelli says. You still see red, but you
have learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in
your eye (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact
redness (a). Rovelli is replacing one conceptualization with
another...and telling us we should not become overly attached to a
conceptualization. I'm reminded of Lemaitre advising the Pope to not
tie faith in the creation to the Big Bang.
Rovelli should have read first:
Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the
Truth from Our Eyes, 2019.
I don't think Rovelli would have any argument with it. He certainly
doesn't hold that the manifest world, which evolution has provided,
is the real world. Physics is all about using instruments and
experiments and theories to find a more comprehensive and consistent
concept of the world that produces the manifest world.
Brent
Evgenii
Brent schrieb am Sonntag, 28. März 2021 um 00:35:27 UTC+1:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
*The Old Fisherman's Mistake*
ROVELLI, Carlo (2021)
Abstract
A number of thorny issues such as the nature of time, free
will, the clash of the manifest and scientific images, the
possibility of a naturalistic foundation of morality, and
perhaps even the possibility of accounting for consciousness
in naturalistic terms, seem to me to be plagued by the
conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old
fisherman's mistake.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf
<http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18837/1/Pescatore.pdf>
Rovelli has it exactly right.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72677d11-ca95-4653-a487-8b0f8cebe8e1n%40googlegroups.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c56aa012-2444-24d4-7b97-890df136efd8%40rudnyi.ru.