date:20121209

On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics
among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),

That's not an interpretation at all.

Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes. His view is
that once
you can explain the diagonalization of the the density matrix (either by
eigenselection, dechoherence, or just assumed per Bohr) then you have
predicted
probabilities. QM is a probabilistic theory - so predicting
probabilities is
all you can ask of it.

Is science just about its applications or about understanding the world? I
would
argue that science would not progress so far as it has if we thought
finding the
equation was the be all and end all of science. The "shut up and calculate"
mindset can be translated as "don't ask embarrassing questions", it is the
antithesis of scientific thinking.

Student in the 1500s: Does the earth move about the sun, or do the planets
merely
appear to move as if earth moved about the sun?
Professor in the 1500s: We have all the formulas for predicting planetary
motion,
so shut up and calculate!

Fortunately, Copernicus wasn't satisfied with that answer.

So what's your objection to Omnes? That the world just can't be
probabilistic? So
instead there must be infinitely many inaccessible worlds - which happen to
mimic a
probabilistic world.

It is fine if QM is a probabilistic theory. Where I disagree with him is in his belief
that we can never go beyond that in our understanding of it. I am not sure how accurate
this statement is, since it is a secondary source, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Omn%C3%A8s says: "We will never, Omnès believes,
find a common sense interpretation of quantum law itself." To me, it almost seems as if
he says it is not worth trying to find an answer.

Suppose he'd said in 1400CE, "We will never find a common sense interpretation of the
sphericity of the Earth." He'd have been right; we didn't, instead we changed 'common sense'.

I lean more towards David Deutsch who says science is about finding good
explanations.

But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good
explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But
simply postulating an ensemble of worlds to make the probabilities "deterministic" in
arbitrary way doesn't strike me as any improvement.

Brent
"As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say,
men on the opposite side of the earth where the sun rises
when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite
ours, that is on no ground credible. Even if some unknown
landmass is there, and not just ocean, "there was only one
pair of original ancestors, and it is inconceivable that
such distant regions should have been peopled by Adam's
descendants."
--- St. Augustine

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Against Mechanism


On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum 
Mechanics among
working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),


That's not an interpretation at all.


Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes.  His view is that 
once you
can explain the diagonalization of the the density matrix (either by 
eigenselection,
dechoherence, or just assumed per Bohr) then you have predicted 
probabilities.  QM
is a probabilistic theory - so predicting probabilities is all you can ask 
of it.


Is science just about its applications or about understanding the world?  I would argue 
that science would not progress so far as it has if we thought finding the equation was 
the be all and end all of science.  The "shut up and calculate" mindset can be 
translated as "don't ask embarrassing questions", it is the antithesis of scientific 
thinking.


Student in the 1500s: Does the earth move about the sun, or do the planets merely appear 
to move as if earth moved about the sun?
Professor in the 1500s: We have all the formulas for predicting planetary motion, so 
shut up and calculate!


Fortunately, Copernicus wasn't satisfied with that answer.


So what's your objection to Omnes?  That the world just can't be probabilistic?  So 
instead there must be infinitely many inaccessible worlds - which happen to mimic a 
probabilistic world.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread Jason Resch

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>  And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
>> among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),
>>
>
>  That's not an interpretation at all.
>
>
> Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes.  His view is that
> once you can explain the diagonalization of the the density matrix (either
> by eigenselection, dechoherence, or just assumed per Bohr) then you have
> predicted probabilities.  QM is a probabilistic theory - so predicting
> probabilities is all you can ask of it.
>
>
Is science just about its applications or about understanding the world?  I
would argue that science would not progress so far as it has if we thought
finding the equation was the be all and end all of science.  The "shut up
and calculate" mindset can be translated as "don't ask embarrassing
questions", it is the antithesis of scientific thinking.

Student in the 1500s: Does the earth move about the sun, or do the planets
merely appear to move as if earth moved about the sun?
Professor in the 1500s: We have all the formulas for predicting planetary
motion, so shut up and calculate!

Fortunately, Copernicus wasn't satisfied with that answer.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Against Mechanism


On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


This reminded me a bit of "The Presumptuous Philosopher" thought experiment:


It is the year 2100 and physicists have narrowed down the search for a theory of 
everything to only two remaining plausible candidate theories, T1 and T2 (using 
considerations from super-duper symmetry). According to T1 the world is very,  very

big but finite, and there are a total of a trillion trillion observers in  
the
cosmos. According to T2, the world is very, very, very big but finite, and  
there
are a trillion trillion trillion observers. The super-duper symmetry  
considerations
seem to be roughly indifferent between these two theories. The  physicists 
are
planning on carrying out a simple experiment that will falsify  one of the 
theories.
Enter the presumptuous philosopher: "Hey guys, it is  completely 
unnecessary for you
to do the experiment, because I can already show  to you that T2 is about a 
trillion
times more likely to be true than T1  (whereupon the philosopher runs the 
God’s Coin
Toss thought experiment and  explains Model 3)!"

One suspects the Nobel Prize committee to be a bit hesitant about awarding 
the
presumptuous philosopher the big one for this contribution.



Which is why the anthropic principle is useless until you have something else determine 
the ontology.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Against Mechanism


On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics 
among
working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),


That's not an interpretation at all.


Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes.  His view is that once you can 
explain the diagonalization of the the density matrix (either by eigenselection, 
dechoherence, or just assumed per Bohr) then you have predicted probabilities.  QM is a 
probabilistic theory - so predicting probabilities is all you can ask of it.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads

2012-12-09 Thread John Mikes

OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system.
The last time I really *studied* math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my
Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget.

12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a math-system,
like with "2" the binary, or with "10" the decimal. The rest is application
(ha ha). Ask the super-duper universal computer of yours.

Sorry for erring into such un-serious and un-scientific corners.

Have a good Christmas time

John
--

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
> On 08 Dec 2012, at 21:32, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>
> how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal,
> binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems?
> in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1.
>
>
> I am not sure I understand what a 12/17 ary system. Thanks for using the
> base 10 for 12 and 17, at least.
>
> Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind).
>
>
> Not sure.
>
>
> Also zero can be "thought of" in non-human logic as participant in
> calculations.
>
>
> The chinese makes them so, and basically all numbers, except 3, 4, 5, 6,
>  were first seen as useful participants until we develop the axiomatic
> method where we can work on any system on numbers as long as we find some
> axioms making it possible to share the discoveries with others.
>
>
>
> John M
> PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work.
>
>
> Oops! Too late :)
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers,
>>> whatever they be.
>>>
>>
>> Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 
>> or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Have received the following content -
>>> Sender: Roger Clough
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:36
>>> Subject: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the
>>> Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's
>>> 1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God.
>>>
>>> 2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I
>>> thought that all monads had to refer to physical substances.
>>>
>>> But natural numbers are different because
>>> even though they are only mental substances, they're still
>>> substances, by virtue of the fact that they can't be subdivided.
>>> So they are of one part each.
>>>
>>> Thus the natural numbers are monads, even though they have no
>>> physical correlates. Sorry I've be so slow to see that.
>>>
>>> That reallyiopens doors Then numbers can see each other with 1p.
>>>
>>> WHOOPEE !
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 12/7/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Bruno Marchal
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-12-06, 12:44:46
>>> Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the
>>> mind
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05 Dec 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>
>>> Indeed, we can not code for [1p].  But we need not abandon
>>> itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive
>>> theory has done.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary, I define it is a simple way (the owner of the diary)
>>> the the self-multiplication thought experiment (UDA). It is enough to
>>> understand that physics emerge from the way the "numbers see themselves".
>>>
>>>
>>> But in the math part, I define it by using the fact that the
>>> incompleteness phenomenon redeemed the Theatetus definition. The Bp & p
>>> definition. It is a bit technical.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't worry. The 1p is the inner god, the first person, the knower, and
>>> it plays the key role for consciousness and matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  We can replace [1p] by its actions -
>>> those of perception,  in which terms are relational (subject: object).
>>> You seem to deal with everything from the 3p perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's science. But don't confuse the level. My object of study is the
>>> 1p, that we can attribute to machine, or person emulated by machines. I
>>> describe the 3p and the 1ps (singular and plural), and indeed their
>>> necessary statistical relation at some level.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is my argument for using semiotics, which includes 1p (or
>>> interprant) as a necessary and natural part of its triad of relations.
>>> Your responses seem to leave out such relations.  I cannot find
>>> again the quote I should have bookmarked, but in an argument
>>> for using semiotics on the web, it was said that modern cognitive
>>> theory has abandoned the self in an effort to depersonalize
>>> cognit

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe

2012-12-09 Thread Stephen P. King


On 12/9/2012 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hmm

With CTM it is simple, if our knowledge augment linearly, our 
ignorance augments non computably. The more we know, the more we can 
intuit how much we don't know, making us wiser (with some luck). We 
can jump from big picture to big picture, but we cannot ever be sure, 
and there is an infinity of surprises awaiting for us.


The enemy is not ignorance, it the fake knowledge, the hiding of 
ignorance, I would say.



Dear Bruno,

Sure! I don't see a necessary disagreement in our view here.

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Against Mechanism

2012-12-09 Thread Jason Resch

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>> If I understand your point correctly the deciding factor of an
>> experiment's value is whether there is a result obtained not known before
>> the experiment is conducted.
>
>
> If a experiment produces nothing surprising then nothing is learned, and
> ever time Bruno's experiment is preformed the result is always the same,
> every box that can be checked in the lab notebook will be checked.
>
> > Further, you argue that in the case of QM (under the MWI), or in the
>> case of duplicating entire Hubble volumes there is a definite result
>
>
> MWI is just something to help to figure out what a theory means, but it
> doesn't effect the numbers obtained for a experiment so forget it, in fact
> forget the theory too, forget Quantum mechanics; the 2-slit experiment
> always produces a unique result and one that can not be predicted
> beforehand.
>

>From whose perspective is there a single unique result?  From the God's-eye
view of reality, there certainly is not a single outcome.  Your issue is
you use the God's-eye view for Bruno's experiment but not for the 2-slit
experiment.

>
> And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
> among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),
>

That's not an interpretation at all.

> it says that in the 2 slit experiment the absolute value of the square of
> the value of the Schrodinger wave equation of a photon at a point on a
> photographic plate will be the classical probability of finding the photon
> at that point when you develop the plate. This prediction of Quantum
> Mechanics has been proven to be correct many many times and according to
> SUAC that's the end of the matter.
>

But those predicted probabilities are more similar to those of Bruno's
first person indeterminacy than the strict "100% for all possibilities"
that your reasoning seems to predict.  Someone with assumptions would have
a pretty easy time disproving the MWI of QM, but you not only do not reject
MWI, but appear to favor it.  Thus there is a contradiction somewhere.  It
is why I keep returning to the MWI in this thread.

>
>
> > because those who observe different results cannot communicate with each
>> other. This suggests the value of the experiment is in some part determined
>> by how far apart the duplicates are separated.
>
>
> One can always say that the results of a experiment could be invalidated
> if new information is obtained, but in the case of the 2-slit experiment
> this new information is not only unavailable it is in another universe and
> so can never be available even in theory.
>
> > Perhaps then 10^1000 light years is sufficient?  Such duplicates who
>> could prove us wrong may in fact exist far far away.  Max Tegmark has
>> calculated that due to the limited number of quantum states a fixed volume
>> can be in that statistically there is a duplicate exactly identical to you
>> less than 10^10^28 meters away and 10^10^118 meters away there is an entire
>> Hubble volume exactly identical to ours.
>
>
> Yes, assuming the universe is much much much much bigger than anything we
> will ever be able to observe, assuming that the universe is perfectly flat
> and so doesn't curve around and form a finite multidimensional sphere
> before it is allowed to get that big. And at present there is little
> evidence to support that view and little evidence to refute it. It's true
> that recently it has been found, from closely measuring the cosmic
> microwave background radiation, that the universe is pretty flat so we know
> for sure it's much bigger than what we can see, but we don't know for sure
> that it's anywhere close to being big enough for what Tegmark is talking
> about.
>

This reminded me a bit of "The Presumptuous Philosopher" thought experiment:

It is the year 2100 and physicists have narrowed down the search for a
theory of  everything to only two remaining plausible candidate theories,
T1 and T2 (using  considerations from super-duper symmetry). According to
T1 the world is very,  very big but finite, and there are a total of a
trillion trillion observers in  the cosmos. According to T2, the world is
very, very, very big but finite, and  there are a trillion trillion
trillion observers. The super-duper symmetry  considerations seem to be
roughly indifferent between these two theories. The  physicists are
planning on carrying out a simple experiment that will falsify  one of the
theories. Enter the presumptuous philosopher: "Hey guys, it is  completely
unnecessary for you to do the experiment, because I can already show  to
you that T2 is about a trillion times more likely to be true than T1
(whereupon the philosopher runs the God’s Coin Toss thought experiment and
explains Model 3)!"

One suspects the Nobel Prize committee to be a bit hesitant about awarding
the presumptuous philosopher the big one for this contribution.

Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

2012-12-09 Thread Stephen P. King


On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Roger,
The monads are collectively god


Dear Roger and Richard,

This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are 
collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation 
is more like what we see in a neural network



That's is likely what Newton would believe
and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in
but was afraid to express.
Richard

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist

Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen





--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Against Mechanism

On 09 Dec 2012, at 02:23, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated
with that changing person will change over time too, and the
meaning of the pronoun will change even more suddenly if a
duplicating chamber is used.

But both remember the protocol, and make sense of the P=1/2, and
use it correctly in future iterated experiences.

I suppose P=1/2 comes from an implicit symmetry. But that's not
analogous to probabilities in QM which and take a range of real
values. And that's one of the problems with Everett's MWI - it
implies that when there are two equi-probable choices then there
must be two orthogonal worlds which by symmetry have
probability 1/2, but if the two outcomes have probabilities
0.5+x and 0.5-x where x is some transcendental number then
infinitely many parallel worlds must come into existence to
instantiate the right measure, even though x is very small.

In QM+CTM, the probabilities are given by P = A^2 (with A the
amplitude of the wave, and it gives the relative measure, always on an
infinite sets of worlds). I know this can be debated (and infinities
can be replaced by big numbers in some discrete physics, but they
contradict CTM).

In "pure CTM", you can manage to have any proportion you want in any
iteration, if only by "killing" some consistent extensions.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe



On 09 Dec 2012, at 00:30, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly,  
except for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic  
"explanation" (=a joke).

Dear John,

;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between  
serious and 'just kidding". We understand each other here. :-)




I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I  
do not detect the concept for such.


Exactly! This is partly why I make such a big deal about how  
people use the concept of 'existence'. It is impossible to deny the  
existence without first assuming the possibility that it could  
indeed exist! To avoid this trap, why not pull existence completely  
away from any dependence on anything else and take it as an  
ontological primitive. We then say (with Ayn Rand) "existence  
exists". Full Stop.



Also: when you wrote

" I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent  
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global  
or total cause or 'orchestration'."


it resonates with my "denial" of classic causation in which it is  
presumed to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my  
agnosticism denies from our present knowable.


'What is Knowledge' is almost as difficult a question as 'what  
is truth'! I really like Bruno's proposed solution, but he seems to  
have a hard time with my attempt to "parametrize" truth using  
agreements or mutual consistency in a game theoretical sense. What I  
propose is no different from the solution to the problem of "perfect  
knowledge" in game theory! Thinking of knowledge and truth via  
semantic games has the nice bonus of allowing for a nice extension  
into statistics and probability. I really like when one mathematical  
idea connects to another.


I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think  
of is the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for,  
considering more than we may know within our presently knowable  
model of the world.


OK. What I do to think of this is to ask: "what situation is  
necessary for the appearance of a type of change to vanish, in some  
class of related circumstances?" I first noticed that this implies  
that for a change to be non-vanishing there has to be a non- 
vanishing means to measure the change or otherwise keep track of its  
effects. Take away the means to measure change, and what is left?


I am also struggling with the driving force behind all  
'that' (meaning the infinite complexity) IMO the origination of  
anything. A have no identification for the 'relations' either. Nor  
for any 'interchange' - a possible and inevitably occurring 'cause'  
for violating the (presumed?) infinite symmetry (call it  
equilibrium?) -  generating undefinable "universes" (in my  
narrative).


The way I see it, perfect infinite symmetry is changeless. Why?  
What would act as the measure of change of the P.I.S.? Nothing! If  
we some how break the symmetry, we get an immediate potential  
difference and, check it out, the difference between the perfectly  
symmetric case and the not so symmetric case is the same kind of  
difference that we see between the states of a system in a maximum  
entropy state and a state some distance away from maximum entropy.  
Voila! We have at least an intuitive way to think of change and a  
measure of such.




Orchestration is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the  
'least obstructed way' of change substituting even for 'evolution'- 
like processes.


Yeah, this is, IMHO, the main reason why people have such a  
problem understanding the nature of time! The fact that the sequence  
of events can be mapped to the Real numbers gets all the attention  
and leads to thoughts that time is a dimension and the question as  
to "How did the events get sequenced like that in the first place?"  
gets ignored.


The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking  
within those limitations we observed over the past millennia.


I agree, it is a comforting idea.

The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday.  
By no means an 'absolute' denomination (not a 'real entity').


"Take me to your leader", explained the invader. "Whatr is a  
leader?", asked the native. "None of you rules over the rest?" asked  
the invader in surprise. "Why should there be such?, "We are all  
different and have our own unique thoughts, why should some 'one'  
rule over the rest?". "Oh my!", exclaimed the invader, "I had better  
rethink my tactics!".


I want to press that I do not feel "above" such limitations myself,  
but at least I try to find wider boundaries.


Boundaries are merely horizons to expand.



I would not say:

"...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power  
source."


rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic  
ign

Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads


Hi John,


On 08 Dec 2012, at 21:32, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno:

how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only  
decimal, binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number  
systems?
in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides  
the 1.


I am not sure I understand what a 12/17 ary system. Thanks for using  
the base 10 for 12 and 17, at least.



Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind).


Not sure.


Also zero can be "thought of" in non-human logic as participant in  
calculations.


The chinese makes them so, and basically all numbers, except 3, 4, 5,  
6,  were first seen as useful participants until we develop the  
axiomatic method where we can work on any system on numbers as long as  
we find some axioms making it possible to share the discoveries with  
others.





John M
PS: no response required indeed. My agnosticism at work.


Oops! Too late :)

Best,

Bruno





On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote:


Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers,  
whatever they be.


Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 
or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...

Bruno





- Have received the following content -
Sender: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:36
Subject: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads


Hi Bruno Marchal


1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the
Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's
1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God.

2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I
thought that all monads had to refer to physical substances.

But natural numbers are different because
even though they are only mental substances, they're still
substances, by virtue of the fact that they can't be subdivided.
So they are of one part each.

Thus the natural numbers are monads, even though they have no
physical correlates. Sorry I've be so slow to see that.

That reallyiopens doors Then numbers can see each other with 1p.

WHOOPEE !

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-06, 12:44:46
Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling  
the mind





On 05 Dec 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Indeed, we can not code for [1p].  But we need not abandon
itr entirely, as you seem to have done, and as cognitive
theory has done.


On the contrary, I define it is a simple way (the owner of the  
diary) the the self-multiplication thought experiment (UDA). It is  
enough to understand that physics emerge from the way the "numbers  
see themselves".



But in the math part, I define it by using the fact that the  
incompleteness phenomenon redeemed the Theatetus definition. The Bp  
& p definition. It is a bit technical.



Don't worry. The 1p is the inner god, the first person, the knower,  
and it plays the key role for consciousness and matter.









 We can replace [1p] by its actions -
those of perception,  in which terms are relational (subject: object).
You seem to deal with everything from the 3p perspective.


That's science. But don't confuse the level. My object of study is  
the 1p, that we can attribute to machine, or person emulated by  
machines. I describe the 3p and the 1ps (singular and plural), and  
indeed their necessary statistical relation at some level.








That is my argument for using semiotics, which includes 1p (or
interprant) as a necessary and natural part of its triad of relations.
Your responses seem to leave out such relations.  I cannot find
again the quote I should have bookmarked, but in an argument
for using semiotics on the web, it was said that modern cognitive
theory has abandoned the self in an effort to depersonalize
cognition.  While this is a valid scientific reason, it doesn't work
when living breathing humans are concerned.


I use computer and mathematical logic semantic. That's the advantage  
of comp. You have computer science.






IMHO leaving out [1p ] in such a way will forever prevent
computer calculations from emulating the mind.


The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person  
points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the  
meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear.



Bruno








[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-03, 13:03:12
Subject: Re: Semantic vs logical truth




On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual  
machines knows already

Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science



On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:11, Roger Clough wrote:


Bruno Marchal said

"They are logically "interacting" though."

Right. Which is only possible if both mind and body (brain) are
treated as mind, which is what L did with his monads.
Materialism treats them both as body, which is nonsensical.

So L's solution to the mind/brain problem (Chalmer's
"Hard Problem") is the only possibly correct one.


I agree. A part of the mind-body problem comes from the ... invention  
of matter (primitive matter). It is an extrapolation coming from our  
taking seriously the local appearances, to eat, and to avoid being  
eaten. I guess.


Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 05:01:39
Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science


On 07 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Stephen,

I think that's just more materialist wishful thinking, because mind  
and body

are completely different substances,


In the plato sense? OK. (hypostase is better than substance in this  
case, as subtance is often considered as primary)




no matter what your philosophy or
science, and cannot interact.


They are logically "interacting" though.

Bruno




The failure to solve the "hard problem"
shows that.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-06, 10:14:29
Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Hi Stephen,



This is the case with modern cognitive science:
1)牋It ignored Descartes' two substance (mind and brain)
solution to the mind/brain problem in favor爋f treating
both substances as material.

A common criticism of dualism is the problem of interaction. If  
mind is outside the physical world, how does it interact with  
body? Any mechanism of interaction you can propose would make mind  
part of the physical world, thus negating dualism.


Dear Telmo,

牋 There is no "problem of interaction" if mind and body are  
isomorphs of each other, as Pratt proposes; they are Stone duals of  
each other, here. Descartes' substance dualism fails because the  
poor chap was asking the wrong question. The right question to ask  
is: How do minds interact with each other? Answer: via bodies.  
Minds are just the self-representations that bodies can have of  
themselves.


Thanks for the link, I'll read it once I have a bit more time.




I appreciate and share the sentiment that there is something  
extremely weird about consciousness, that cannot be explained by  
current science. I don't buy into the idea that consciousness  
emerges from neural activity. Yet, any explanation must place  
consciousness inside the real of physical laws (or vice-versa),  
otherwise the previous paradox arises.


牋 Once we accept that consciousness is only knowable in a first  
person sense we will stop asking for third person descriptions/ 
explanations for it.


I agree but to me "first person" and "consciousness" are exactly  
the same thing. The deep existential questions remain unanswered...



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, s

Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

2012-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist

Roger,
The monads are collectively god
That's is likely what Newton would believe
and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in
but was afraid to express.
Richard

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian.
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/9/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
>
> Roger,
>
> Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not
> need a god outside of themselves.
> Richard
>
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>
>> Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was
>> not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is
>> who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad.
>> L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence
>> or the One.
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 12/8/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Richard Ruquist
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27
>> Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
>>
>> Roger,
>>
>> In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is
>> required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore
>> isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore
>> cannot be god.
>> Richard
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>>
>>>
>>> You say, "God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is
>>> expressed on and in all of them. "
>>>
>>> God is the agent that carries out this expression,
>>> for only He knows what they all are.
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 12/8/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Richard Ruquist
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57
>>> Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King 
>>> wrote:
 On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen,

 I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that
 upsets
 many people.

 Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one
 control,
 the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but
 that
 is necessary and more than that wouldn't work.


 Dear Roger,

 The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or
 special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is
 expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a
 "one
 God" was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church.
>>>
>>> Hear, Hear
>>>


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 12/6/2012
 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen




 --
 Onward!

 Stephen

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups
 "Everything List" group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything Lis

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is noobserver.

Hi Richard,

Plato's One cannot be a number, for it is where
numbers and their properties come from. 

Your thinking is filled with category mistakes.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Roger Clough 
Receiver: Richard Ruquist 
Time: 2012-12-09, 07:44:50
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is 
noobserver.


Hi Richard Ruquist 

That can't logically be true,
for numbers are just numbers.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: Roger Clough 
Time: 2012-12-08, 08:50:06
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is noobserver.


According to Bruno, numbers are everything, including god.

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Properties are just numbers.
> Objects are objects.
>
> You seem to have some sort of mental block
> against sorting out levels of being.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/8/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: Bozo TheClown
> Time: 2012-12-07, 08:18:37
> Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no
> observer.
>
> Your mind is closed.Sobeit
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Roger Clough 
> Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
> To: everything-list 
>
>
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> No, the properties are outside of spacetime, the objects
> of the properties are within spacetime. You still don't get it.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/7/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-12-06, 09:50:18
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>
>> Entities are either in spacetime (physical),
>> or outside of spacetime (nonphysical).
>
> Merely an assumption Roger because you cannot understand how entities
> in spacetime can have properties that are effectively outside of
> spacetime. Sobeit.
> Richard
>
>>
>> Quanta are outside of spacetime (as nonphysical probability fields)
>> until detected or they hit a barrier, which puts them inside of
>> spacetime (they become physical such as a photon or electron),
>> since in that case one can assign a location to them at a specific time.
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 12/6/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Richard Ruquist
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-12-05, 13:00:30
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
>>
>> Mapping refers to the perception of the monads.
>> The string theory monads exist in space
>> but have properties that effectively
>> put them outside of spacetime.
>> They are not simply ideas
>> if string theory is correct.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>>
>>> You still don't understand. You're confusing the map
>>> (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information)
>>> with the territory (physical space).
>>>
>>> It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to,
>>> not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are
>>> not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime.
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 12/5/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> - Receiving the following content -
>>> From: Richard Ruquist
>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>> Time: 2012-12-05, 09:34:15
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
>>>
>>> Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory
>>> are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed
>>> throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad
>>> maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC.
>>> In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so
>>> that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p
 is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size,
 so it could include an infinite number of universes.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 12/5/2012
 "Forever is a lon

Re: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

Hi Richard Ruquist 

Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-08, 08:48:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God


Roger,

Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not
need a god outside of themselves.
Richard

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was
> not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is
> who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad.
> L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence
> or the One.
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/8/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-12-08, 07:49:27
> Subject: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
>
> Roger,
>
> In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is
> required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore
> isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore
> cannot be god.
> Richard
>
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>> Hi Richard Ruquist
>>
>>
>> You say, "God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is
>> expressed on and in all of them. "
>>
>> God is the agent that carries out this expression,
>> for only He knows what they all are.
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 12/8/2012
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Richard Ruquist
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-12-06, 12:59:57
>> Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stephen P. King 
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2012 7:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> I slipped up, sorry. I usually avoid using the word God since that upsets
>>> many people.
>>>
>>> Instead, you can think of L's universe as a complete system with one
>>> control,
>>> the Supreme Monad (the One). It only needs one master controller, but
>>> that
>>> is necessary and more than that wouldn't work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Roger,
>>>
>>> The way I see the idea, there is no need for a single central control or
>>> special monad. God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is
>>> expressed on and in all of them. I see the language that L used about a
>>> "one
>>> God" was merely a way to remain in the good graces of the Church.
>>
>> Hear, Hear
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>> 12/6/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to

Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Leibniz, being an Idealist, took the monads and ideas to be real, 
the physical world to be phenomenol, but not an illusion.
You could still stub your toe.  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-08, 10:04:04
Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science







2012/12/8 Stephen P. King 

On 12/7/2012 6:01 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Fantastic links, specially the latter. I?l read it. 


This is my standpoint now:


First is necessary to define existence. ?y standpoint is that what exists ?s 
what the mind assumes that exist (because it is relevant) .


Dear Alberto,

?? But this makes existence subservient on the ability of a mind to apprehend 
what might exist. This is requires an explanation of how that could occur! How 
can a mind cause something to exist? I see this as conflating the notion of 
existence with the notion of definiteness of properties. 

?? In my philosophy, I take existence as ontological primitive and completely 
divorsed of innate properties; it replaces 'substance' as the neutral 'bearer 
of of properties'. Existence is eternal, it cannot be created or destroyed. 
Properties are that which the mind selects as actual from the possible. If we 
demand that an entity's existence requires a priori properties, then I would 
stipulate that all possible properties are implied by bare existence. 



Dear Stephen:
?
...Here you express a belief that is coherent with my notion of existence. Mine 
is historically called Realism, that is, what the mind aprehend is the reality 
because apart from that, there is no other reality that we can access. Phisical 
reality is part of this mind created reality. Your idea of existence is also an 
instance


? take an operational approach from outside, and I said that the ontological 
concepts are the ones in each individual mind shares with others. Outside of 
that I can not imagine other notion of existence apart from mathematical 
existence. Do men exist? This is because we have a hardwired category for men. 
Do cars exists? yes because we have a hardwired categories for man-made things, 
?ast things, dangerous things and so on that are used to construct the category 
of car.


Mathematical existence may be also a necessary consequence of the existence of 
the mind.


? don? fall into relativism, since the hard and soft architecture of the human 
mind are the same in all men, and so the categorizations. ?here are universal 
categories because there are universal feelings, worries and problems. that 
humans have and we deal with them in similar ways. If not, there would be no 
translation possible between languages, and the Arabs would not like 
south-american soap-operas, as the relativist culturalists used to believe.


?n this case, the process is what make the category. ?hat something is a 
substance means that there are patterns in the processes that have a 
recognizable structure recognized as substantial. A processis composed of 
patterns, these patterns are categories or substances. 



?? Yes, Process defines categories. Substances, in my thinking, are collections 
of similar bundles of properties.
?



That is unavoidable, because the mind has no infinite power neither the brain 
has a infinite?uantity?f connections, therefore it has to reuse functional 
components, some of?hich?re ?ard wired. ?etaphors are a sign of 
this?e-usability: ? can kill an insect, but a bacteria can kill me, ? can 
"kill" a program...


?? I disagree. The mind has infinite power but is contained such that it can 
only have extensions that are consistent with precedent. No 'new idea' or 
thought can be in logical conflict with previously held truths! Remember, a 
mind is not a fixed 'thing'!


So a mind is not consistent with or is the efect-cause of ?he activity of the 
brain? how a limited computer like the brain can have infinite power?. At least 
it is quite slow for some tasks, if we compare with an ordinary calculator. So 
some limitation apply to the mind, at least in the time parameter




In al these processes, the pattern is the same: something that existed before 
does not exit now because an active subject has acted to kill it. ?he category 
of killing has certain properties: it ?s nor reflexive, has a relation of order 
etc. ? 



?? Not in my thinking. Some new properties become known to be the case, thus a 
mind can evolve by gaining new knowledge. Existence is completely passive. 



Sure, you can make subcategories. But for sure when you and a Yanomamo think 
about the concept of "killing" for sure that both of you are thinking about 
exactly the same concept and could compose phrases in which both of you will 
agree.


I can philosophize about the notion of killing, abstracted from the concrete 
situation . In the same way

Toward a Platonic model of creation - ver. 1