Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
a) assume that there is an 'objective reality in the Bruno sense: a
reality exists. _any_ sort of reality will do.
b) draw a purely notional boundary around any portion of it at any
spatiotemporal scale.
Do you think it's possible *not* to start with this assumption? The
problem with natural language is that it implicitly assumes the AIV is
'out there' as the primary reality, and it can be tough to work
back from this point of departure. I was trying to develop a language
that started from the APV and worked outwards, as it were, so that it
was easier to see how emergent information boundaries were shaping and
structuring the APV and the AIV while at the same time contingently
creating the 'not-X', without fundamentally creating novel ontic
(as opposed to epistemic) categories. Unfortunately, the terminology
tended to become impenetrable and in the end a barrier to
communication. I don't have a solution to this.
Somehow it's like:
a) we mentally step outside of the APV to see what it's like in the
'external world'
b) we make models of what we see out there (the AIV), including our
'brains'
c) then we forget about step a), get stranded outside, and take the AIV
for 'reality'
d) leaving us in a panic about how to get back inside our 'brains'
Somebody once asked what is the external world 'external' to?
Do you know?
some people here think the APV is '3-person'
some people here think the AIV is '3-person'
My view is that the *fact of * the APV is 1-person, and everything else
is 3-person. That is, the 1-person is the unmediated intuitive grasp of
3-person information by the 'underlying reality'. What lies within
the APV, the AIV, or the 'external world' to which they refer, then
depends solely on contingent boundaries emerging from 3-person
information gradients and horizons. Essentially this is categorising
the ontology as 1-person, and the epistemology as 3-person. However, I
realise that this is a minority approach, and has caused much
confusion, so I've more or less given up trying to promote it.
I think the general view is that the APV is 1-person, and the AIV is
3-person. But then, the AIV *model* of the APV is 3-person, and the
distinction between this and the 1-person APV is confusing (the 'hard
problem').
The easiest way to think of it is to regard X as a finger puppet. The
'fingers' are behaving atomly in that the fingers are painted (appear -
APV) to deliver the appearance of 'atom-ly (AIV) behaviour'. The AIV says
nothing about FINGERS. Then note that whatever the fingers are - you, the
observer - are made of the SAME FINGERS and those fingers are painting the
APV in your head. The reason no-one ever gets a physics of qualia is that
nobody EVER gets scientific about _fingers_ - the underling physics -
Everyone thinks the AIV generalisations ARE the fingers.
Conventional physics, I think, denies that the fingers exist - all
that can be said is what QM / string theory / model of the month
describes, and this is equivalent to saying that that's all there is
folks. Comp, however, would say that the fingers are something like
mathematical ontic / epistemic categories (see some of Marc Geddes'
posts), and that these support the emergence of 3-person relata. Sets
of these 1-person / 3-person relationships can be nested recursively,
the whole resting on the 'turtle' of a tightly constrained
'number reality' (e.g. AR+CT+UDA). The 'modest' assumption here
is that not to force 'faith' in comp, but rather study and test it
for its interesting and surprising results and generative power. The
most powerful result would be to pin down the 'emergence direction'
of 1-person -- 3-person once and for all.
David
[Colin]
snip
Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our
one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality
and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most
telling/instructive of the true nature/structure of the underlying
reality, not the appearances thus delivered by subjectivity.
[DAVID]
Yes, and as I've said, I was trying to convey the essence of this
thought with what became (unfortunately) confused with 1-person primacy on
this list. I'd be grateful for help on reformulating this more
coherently if possible. The heart of it is the primary intension of
'exists', whose fons et origo I take to be: 'exists in the sense that I
exist subjectively'.
[COLIN]
Yes. The subtlety is extreme. My way of unpacking it is to think of the
concept of 'perspective view':
a) assume that there is an 'objective reality in the Bruno sense: a
reality exists. _any_ sort of reality will do.
b) draw a purely notional boundary around any portion of it at any
spatiotemporal scale.
Now realise that innate to the situation is that 'being' the notionally
segregated portion of the reality innately, automatically
prescribes/defines a perspective view of the rest of the universe.
