Re: paper on view of reality
On 19 Dec 2009, at 18:08, John Mikes wrote: Reality versions(?) continued... In his post Benjamin Jakubik wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you already presume the appearance of matter, I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume consensual reality. If not, I would not post message on a list. Well, that was my point. So indeed numbers don't make sense independent of that, because... -- IMO to 'presume' the appearance of matter is not more than what I call (Colin's) perceived reality - our own figment at the mental level we can and do muster. Bruno's (nowhere(!) assumed) primitive matter would transcend the 'perceived' - so it seems irrelevant in this respect, however... he assumes a consensual reality . I borrow the term consensual reality from the salvia divinorum user community, mainly to refer to the kind of reality you come back too after an experience. I do believe in such reality, although not in it being fundamental. I have to believe in it to just decide to answer a post. If I was not pretty sure it does exist, given that I cannot doubt my consciousness, I would become a solipsist. So I do believe in things like UK, Obama, trees, bosons and galaxies. Those are mind constructs, with hopefully some referents. Then, assuming comp, and thus elementary arithmetic, Mechanism can explain where such beliefs come from, and why numbers get through a befuddling path with discourses on matter, time and consciousness etc. A philosopher who would stop to believe in consensus reality would stop to publish or posting anything. In whch case a 'consensual' would be even weaker than a 'perceived' - this being a one-person mindset and does not require (consensual) agreement from many. Yes. I still feel that 'numbers' lurk somewhere in these - non primary - hills(as not 'primitives'!) - no matter how imaginative it would be to 'express' anything with long-enough series of them. My ceterum censeo (sorry, Bruno) You are welcome, Best, Bruno On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Ronald: WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in science' - explanatory figment. John M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf any comments on this? Ronald -- 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-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.
Re: paper on view of reality
On 20 Dec 2009, at 05:55, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Ronald, The theory is pure unadulterated Idealism. Matter/energy are, at best, considered as epiphenomena. My efferts to discuss alternatives have lead nowhere... You may try again, or refer to links to your theories. The UD reasoning will then entail that such materialist theories have to be non computationalist. Not that they are irremediably false. But this list seems very open to comp. You may try to find an error in UDA. Without any (fatal) error in UDA, you have to accept that when we assume comp, alternatives to objective idealism are logically/epistemologically ruled out. Note that, unlike the theory mentioned above, comp does not make matter or energy (nor consciousness) epiphenomena. They are relative concrete phenomena which make it possible for us to interact with our (most probable) neighborhoods. Bruno 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-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.
Re: paper on view of reality
As a tyro, I'm wondering whether this is just a summary of what physicists already know or a genuine conceptual breakthrough.marty a. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf any comments on this? Ronald -- -- 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.
Re: paper on view of reality
Not to hijack my thread, but even if Physics is just a subbranch of PA, I have difficulty conceiving of numerical computations happening without matter/energy. Ronald On Dec 19, 12:08 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: *Reality **versions(?)* continued... In his post Benjamin Jakubik wrote:Bruno Marchal wrote: Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you already presume the appearance of matter, I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume consensual reality. If not, I would not post message on a list. Well, that was my point. So indeed numbers don't make sense independent of that, because... -- IMO to 'presume' the *appearance* of matter is not more than what I call (Colin's) *perceived reality* - our own figment at the mental level we *can and do* muster. Bruno's *(nowhere(!) assumed)* primitive matter would transcend the 'perceived' - so it seems irrelevant in this respect, however... he assumes a *consensual reality* . In whch case a 'consensual' would be even weaker than a 'perceived' - this being a one-person mindset and does not require (consensual) agreement from many. I still feel that 'numbers' lurk somewhere in these - non primary - hills(as not 'primitives'!) - no matter how imaginative it would be to 'express' anything with long-enough series of them. My ceterum censeo (sorry, Bruno) John M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Ronald: WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in science' - explanatory figment. John M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.comwrote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf any comments on this? Ronald -- 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.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.
Re: paper on view of reality
Dear Ronald, The theory is pure unadulterated Idealism. Matter/energy are, at best, considered as epiphenomena. My efferts to discuss alternatives have lead nowhere... Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 7:04 PM Subject: Re: paper on view of reality Not to hijack my thread, but even if Physics is just a subbranch of PA, I have difficulty conceiving of numerical computations happening without matter/energy. Ronald On Dec 19, 12:08 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: *Reality **versions(?)* continued... In his post Benjamin Jakubik wrote:Bruno Marchal wrote: Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you already presume the appearance of matter, I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume consensual reality. If not, I would not post message on a list. Well, that was my point. So indeed numbers don't make sense independent of that, because... -- IMO to 'presume' the *appearance* of matter is not more than what I call (Colin's) *perceived reality* - our own figment at the mental level we *can and do* muster. Bruno's *(nowhere(!) assumed)* primitive matter would transcend the 'perceived' - so it seems irrelevant in this respect, however... he assumes a *consensual reality* . In whch case a 'consensual' would be even weaker than a 'perceived' - this being a one-person mindset and does not require (consensual) agreement from many. I still feel that 'numbers' lurk somewhere in these - non primary - hills(as not 'primitives'!) - no matter how imaginative it would be to 'express' anything with long-enough series of them. My ceterum censeo (sorry, Bruno) John M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Ronald: WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in science' - explanatory figment. John M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.comwrote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf any comments on this? Ronald -- 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.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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.
paper on view of reality
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf any comments on this? Ronald -- 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.
Re: paper on view of reality
Ronald: WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) - the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in science' - explanatory figment. John M On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf any comments on this? Ronald -- 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.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@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.
Re: paper on view of reality
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf any comments on this? My first thought was, Am I going to be able to follow 19 pages of this? The answer was: not in complete detail. My next thought was how interesting that I spent last night reading about the Mandelbulb 3D fractal and now a link to your paper is in my inbox. The use of quaternion had previously only been a visualization tool for fractals in my experience, so that's where I went. After skimming through a bit more heavy-duty math+physics that I don't even pretend to understand, I tuned in again on the discussion of Duality. I quickly misapplied this to a concept of fundamental duality as in Yin/Yang, etc. Interesting enough; many people go over the edge when stretching quantum physics (not saying that you have, but that it's easy enough for misunderstanding to have me going in that direction) When I got to the description of the two circles depicted on the following page (p12) I already started feeling like I had been through the material before. Assuming that side-by-side circles were stereo-optical illusions, I stared at them cross-eyed for a minute. Aside from some color-shifting based on my left/right-eye attention, not so spectacular. However, the cube and the paragraph that followed made me think back to a drawing I made in 1992 and the physical model that followed in 1993. It's not directly related to the point you are making in your paper, but it did make me think about the synchronicity of ideas as extant objects in a concept space that we are both describing from different points of reference. In my opinion, even if we're not looking at exact same object, the fact that we're in the same theater is pretty cool. I think in the low-resolution view, I agree with the conclusion you have proposed in your paper. At higher resolution, the details between our models might not overlap exactly. Do you think if you continue to refine the paper, you will include more visualizations? I had difficulty with physics specialization, but not the general concept. Thanks for a good read: in the end 19 pages was shorter than I expected. -- 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.
