### Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

"What is Mind? not matter,What is matter? Never mind!" -The Tao of Homer -Original Message- From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List To: Everything List Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2019 6:34 pm Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon "Matter" is just an idea in consciousness. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On 4/15/2019 8:08 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:14:35 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agray...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at that point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? Sort of. Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is generally non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region around that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent space at that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as zero at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG Yep. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a Riemannian space. Brent But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG It doesn't put it in free-fall. If the particle has EM forces on it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates. The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces. Brent In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on test particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent plane at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG You're looking at it the wrong way around. There never were any gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made fictitious forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference frame you get coriolis forces. If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence principle. And of course Einstein's theory also correctly predicted the bending of light, gravitational waves, time dilation and the precession of the perhelion of Mercury. I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent space; what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to execute this particular transformation? AG Brent *I could be mistaken, I usually am, but ISTM that labeling all points in spacetime as (t, x, y, z) makes no sense since there is no universal clock in GR. Each observer has his own clock in GR. No "Bird's Eye" observer GR. So what could the same t for all spatial points mean, or increasing t's as time evolves? AG* The "t" in the

### Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at that point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? Sort of. Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is generally non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region around that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent space at that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as zero at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG Yep. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a Riemannian space. Brent But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG It doesn't put it in free-fall. If the particle has EM forces on it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates. The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces. Brent In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on test particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent plane at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG You're looking at it the wrong way around. There never were any gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made fictitious forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference frame you get coriolis forces. If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. --—John von Neumann Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG That's one possibility, e.g entropic gravity. What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence principle. And of course Einstein's theory also correctly predicted the bending of light, gravitational waves, time dilation and the precession of the perhelion of Mercury. I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent space; what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to execute this particular transformation? AG For one thing, you know the acceleration due to non-gravitational forces in this frame. So you can transform to it, put in the accelerations, and transform back. So all the "gravitation" is in the transform. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

### Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:14:35 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> >> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent space >> where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at that point >> in >> spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? >> >> >> Sort of. >> > > > Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate system > and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non > zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is generally > non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region > around > that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent space > at > that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as > zero > at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG > > > Yep. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a Riemannian > space. > > Brent > But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG It doesn't put it in free-fall. If the particle has EM forces on it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates. The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces. Brent >>> >>> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on test >>> particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external >>> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent plane >>> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If >>> this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the >>> gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG >>> >>> >>> You're looking at it the wrong way around. There never were any >>> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made fictitious >>> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference >>> frame you get coriolis forces. >>> >> >> If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate >> system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR >> explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of >> non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG >> > > Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG > >> >> Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational >> force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which >> apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG >> > > It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely > pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other > forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG > >> >> >> >>> What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence principle. >>> And of course Einstein's theory also correctly predicted the bending of >>> light, gravitational waves, time dilation and the precession of the >>> perhelion of Mercury. >>> >> >> I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent space; >> what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to execute this >> particular transformation? AG >> >>> >>> Brent >>> >> *I could be mistaken, I usually am, but ISTM that labeling all points in spacetime as (t, x, y, z) makes no sense since there is no universal clock in GR. Each observer has his own clock in GR. No "Bird's Eye" observer GR. So what could the same t for all spatial points mean, or increasing t's as time evolves? AG* -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent space > where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at that point > in > spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? > > > Sort of. > Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is generally non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region around that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent space at that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as zero at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG Yep. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a Riemannian space. Brent >>> >>> But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by >>> transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in >>> local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG >>> >>> It doesn't put it in free-fall. If the particle has EM forces on it, it >>> will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates. The >>> transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall >>> which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on test >> particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external >> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent plane >> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If >> this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the >> gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG >> >> >> You're looking at it the wrong way around. There never were any >> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made fictitious >> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference >> frame you get coriolis forces. >> > > If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate > system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR > explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of > non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG > Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG > > Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational > force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which > apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG > It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG > > > >> What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence principle. >> And of course Einstein's theory also correctly predicted the bending of >> light, gravitational waves, time dilation and the precession of the >> perhelion of Mercury. >> > > I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent space; > what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to execute this > particular transformation? AG > >> >> 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. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric. Every Mars Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, its communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is. Whether it is "formalizable" or not would seem to depend on choosing the right formalization to describe what engineers already create. Brent On 4/15/2019 11:28 AM, za_wishy via Everything List wrote: Hmm... the thing is that what I'm arguing for in the book is that self-reference is unformalizable, so there can be no mathematics of self-reference. More than this, self-reference is not some concept in a theory, but it is us, each and everyone of us is a form of manifestation of self-reference. Self-reference is an eternal logical structure that eternally looks-back-at-itself. And this looking-back-at-itself automatically generates a subjective ontology, an "I am". In other words, the very definition of the concept of "existence" is the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference. So, existence can only be subjective, so all that can exists is consciousness. I talk in the book how the looking-back-at-itself implies 3 properties: identity (self-reference is itself, x=x), inclusion (self-reference is included in itself, xtranscendence (self-reference is more than itself, x>x). And all these apparently contradictory properties are happening all at the same time. So, x=x, xx all at the same time. But there is no actual contradiction here, because self-reference is unformalizable. The reason why I get to such weird conclusions is explored throughout the book where a phenomenological analysis of consciousness is done and it is shown how it is structured on an emergent holarchy of levels, a holarchy meaning that a higher level includes the lower levels, and I conclude that this can only happen if there is an entity called "self-reference" which has the above mentioned properties. So as you can see, there pretty much cannot be a mathematics of self-reference. I will also present about self-reference at The Science of Consciousness conference this year at Interlaken, Switzerland, so if you are there we can talk more about these issues. On Thursday, 11 April 2019 02:55:55 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Cosmin, It seems your conclusion fits well with the conclusion already given by the universal machine (the Gödel-Löbian one which are those who already knows that they are Turing universal, like ZF, PA, or the combinators + some induction principle). Self-reference is capital indeed, but you seem to miss the mathematical theory of self-reference, brought by the work of Gödel and Löb, and Solovay ultimate formalisation of it at the first order logic level. You cite Penrose, which is deadly wrong on this. In fact incompleteness is a chance for mechanism, as it provides almost directly a theory of consciousness, if you are willing to agree that consciousness is true, indubitable, immediately knowable, non provable and non definable, as each Löbian machine is confronted to such proposition all the “time”. But this enforces also, as I have shown, that the whole of physics has to be justified by some of the modes of self-reference, making physics into a subbranch of elementary arithmetic. This works in the sense that at the three places where physics should appear we get a quantum logic, and this with the advantage of a transparent clear-cut between the qualia (not sharable) and the quanta (sharable in the first person plural sense). You seem to have a good (I mean correct with respect to Mechanism) insight on consciousness, but you seem to have wrong information on the theory of the digital machines/numbers and the role of Gödel. Gödel’s theorem is really a chance for the Mechanist theory, as it explains that the digital machine are non predictable, full of non communicable subjective knowledge and beliefs, and capable of defeating all reductionist theory that we can made of them. Indeed, they are literally universal dissident, and they are born with a conflict between 8 modes of self-apprehension. In my last paper(*) I argue that they can be enlightened, and this shows also that enlightenment and blasphemy are very close, and that religion leads easily to a theological trap making the machine inconsistent, except by staying mute, or referring to Mechanism (which is itself highly unprovable by the consistent machine). Bruno -- 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list

### Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

"Matter" is just an idea in consciousness. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Re: How does one make a topic UNREAD?

On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 1:39:34 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > I only see an option to make all topics READ. TIA. AG > Post a new reply. :) - pt -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Philip Goff is the primary author of the SEP article on the general subject https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ while he (@Philip_Goff on Twitter, links to his web site and videos there) has written on* micropsychism* (also reviewed above) *Cosmopsychism, Micropsychism and the Grounding Relation* https://philarchive.org/archive/GOFCMA His book (likely mostly what he has been presenting on his Twitter feed in the last year) will be called *Galileo's Error* *Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness* https://www.penguinrandomhouseaudio.com/book/599229/galileos-error/ Goff is in the same "camp" mostly with Galen Strawson *Consciousness Isn't a Mystery. It's Matter.* https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html Experience is a first-class property of matter. But at what levels and configurations of matter is the question. This is pretty much the opposite of the "emergence" view: *Panpsychism vs. Emergentism* https://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/#H4 - pt On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > Where can I find Philip Goff's ideas ? Maybe you can summarize them here > so we can discuss. But to answer your question, my book deals specifically > with the emergent structure of consciousness and the nature of > self-reference, so it is a rather specialized book. It is not your everyday > "materialism vs idealism" endless debate. In my book I actually do > something in moving the science of consciousness further, by doing real > science of consciousness. So I guess my book cannot compare too much with > other books out there that are wasting energy in endless debates instead of > actually doing something. > > Btw, I also have a presentation at the Science & Nonduality conference > from last year, where I present about The Emergent Structure of > Consciousness: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ > > On Tuesday, 9 April 2019 08:30:52 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> Although his book isn't out yet, how do you think your approach compares >> to Philip Goff's: >> > -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### How does one make a topic UNREAD?

I only see an option to make all topics READ. TIA. AG -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Hmm... the thing is that what I'm arguing for in the book is that self-reference is unformalizable, so there can be no mathematics of self-reference. More than this, self-reference is not some concept in a theory, but it is us, each and everyone of us is a form of manifestation of self-reference. Self-reference is an eternal logical structure that eternally looks-back-at-itself. And this looking-back-at-itself automatically generates a subjective ontology, an "I am". In other words, the very definition of the concept of "existence" is the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference. So, existence can only be subjective, so all that can exists is consciousness. I talk in the book how the looking-back-at-itself implies 3 properties: identity (self-reference is itself, x=x), inclusion (self-reference is included in itself, xx). And all these apparently contradictory properties are happening all at the same time. So, x=x, xx all at the same time. But there is no actual contradiction here, because self-reference is unformalizable. The reason why I get to such weird conclusions is explored throughout the book where a phenomenological analysis of consciousness is done and it is shown how it is structured on an emergent holarchy of levels, a holarchy meaning that a higher level includes the lower levels, and I conclude that this can only happen if there is an entity called "self-reference" which has the above mentioned properties. So as you can see, there pretty much cannot be a mathematics of self-reference. I will also present about self-reference at The Science of Consciousness conference this year at Interlaken, Switzerland, so if you are there we can talk more about these issues. On Thursday, 11 April 2019 02:55:55 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi Cosmin, > > It seems your conclusion fits well with the conclusion already given by > the universal machine (the Gödel-Löbian one which are those who already > knows that they are Turing universal, like ZF, PA, or the combinators + > some induction principle). > > Self-reference is capital indeed, but you seem to miss the mathematical > theory of self-reference, brought by the work of Gödel and Löb, and Solovay > ultimate formalisation of it at the first order logic level. You cite > Penrose, which is deadly wrong on this. > > In fact incompleteness is a chance for mechanism, as it provides almost > directly a theory of consciousness, if you are willing to agree that > consciousness is true, indubitable, immediately knowable, non provable and > non definable, as each Löbian machine is confronted to such proposition all > the “time”. But this enforces also, as I have shown, that the whole of > physics has to be justified by some of the modes of self-reference, making > physics into a subbranch of elementary arithmetic. This works in the sense > that at the three places where physics should appear we get a quantum > logic, and this with the advantage of a transparent clear-cut between the > qualia (not sharable) and the quanta (sharable in the first person plural > sense). > > You seem to have a good (I mean correct with respect to Mechanism) insight > on consciousness, but you seem to have wrong information on the theory of > the digital machines/numbers and the role of Gödel. Gödel’s theorem is > really a chance for the Mechanist theory, as it explains that the digital > machine are non predictable, full of non communicable subjective knowledge > and beliefs, and capable of defeating all reductionist theory that we can > made of them. Indeed, they are literally universal dissident, and they are > born with a conflict between 8 modes of self-apprehension. In my last > paper(*) I argue that they can be enlightened, and this shows also that > enlightenment and blasphemy are very close, and that religion leads easily > to a theological trap making the machine inconsistent, except by staying > mute, or referring to Mechanism (which is itself highly unprovable by the > consistent machine). > > Bruno > > > > > -- > 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Where can I find Philip Goff's ideas ? Maybe you can summarize them here so we can discuss. But to answer your question, my book deals specifically with the emergent structure of consciousness and the nature of self-reference, so it is a rather specialized book. It is not your everyday "materialism vs idealism" endless debate. In my book I actually do something in moving the science of consciousness further, by doing real science of consciousness. So I guess my book cannot compare too much with other books out there that are wasting energy in endless debates instead of actually doing something. Btw, I also have a presentation at the Science & Nonduality conference from last year, where I present about The Emergent Structure of Consciousness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ On Tuesday, 9 April 2019 08:30:52 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Although his book isn't out yet, how do you think your approach compares > to Philip Goff's: > -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

### Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics *The physics of Game of Thrones* https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/ in another number? Or: Is there a a GoT reality? - pt -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.