Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
Hi Brent, Brent: ' > You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific method banished slavery and tyranny and racism. Would that it were so. Perhaps the scientific method can be applied to politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but historically the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism, Nazism, and Communism, as well as liberal democracy. One can point to those political movements now and regard them as experiments that demonstrated their faults, but that's not much help in shaping the future.' MP: No Brent, I am an optimist as a matter of principle but I don't believe in fairies. This is why I assert that all four 'fundamental ingredients' are necessary. Doom will follow if any is missing! :-o My point is that scientific method has provided the key to unlocking the true latent power available but otherwise hidden in the natural world. For example fossil hydrocarbons and the engines they power have vastly increased the energy available to be deployed in human work. Put simply, slave labour as means and method for creating capital works or maintenance is not just cruel, it is stupidly inefficient also. I am sure we are on the same page with this. I am asserting that none of compassion, democracy, ethics or scientific method is an 'optional extra'; without any of these your society is doomed both to reversion into authoritarian barbarity with concomitant lethal conflict, plus mass poverty and all the ills that come with it. As I am sure you have noticed people often loosely talk about science as being responsible for all manner of problems or bad things [paraphrasing Pratchett: 'All things actions are bad for some particular value of 'bad']. The truth is that scientific method is just a tool, and the uses or abuses to which it is put depend on the ethical stance and decisions of those responsible. In summary: I assert that all policies of governing bodies, private or public, will become self-defeating where they leave out any of these essential ingredients. So a country governed by "Sharia Law" or "Biblical principles" [to name but two] to the exclusion of any of the four essential ingredients, is doomed eventually to poverty, strife, and all the miseries these evils bring. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: > Mark Peaty wrote: >> History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to >> ensure that it doesn't. >> >> If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a >> moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis >> of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am >> wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, > > What assertion? That history has not finished yet? I certainly wouldn't > disagree with that, nor with trying to ensure that it doesn't. > >> which >> of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an >> opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. >> "Agreeing to disagree" is an honourable stance when accompanied >> by respect. >> >> The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method. >> Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras, >> Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method, >> certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what >> were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of >> sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and >> unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for >> most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as >> things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear, >> superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the >> champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have >> time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up.. > > You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific method banished slavery > and tyranny and racism. Would that it were so. Perhaps the scientific > method can be applied to politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but > historically the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism, > Nazism, and Communism, as well as liberal democracy. One can point to those > political movements now and regard them as experiments that demonstrated > their faults, but that's not much help in shaping the future. > > I recently defended the global warming science in a public debate. The > opposition came mostly from libertarians who were sure it was all a > conspiracy to justify a world government with totalitarian powers. They > weren't against science, but they feared an authoritarian government. > > Our unfortunate experience in the mideast over the last few decades is that > given democracy, the citizens will vote to impose majority views on > minorities in the most draconian fashion. So it is not only democracy that > is need
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
Mark Peaty wrote: > History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to > ensure that it doesn't. > > If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a > moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis > of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am > wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, What assertion? That history has not finished yet? I certainly wouldn't disagree with that, nor with trying to ensure that it doesn't. >which > of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an > opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. > "Agreeing to disagree" is an honourable stance when accompanied > by respect. > > The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method. > Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras, > Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method, > certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what > were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of > sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and > unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for > most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as > things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear, > superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the > champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have > time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up.. You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific method banished slavery and tyranny and racism. Would that it were so. Perhaps the scientific method can be applied to politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but historically the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism, Nazism, and Communism, as well as liberal democracy. One can point to those political movements now and regard them as experiments that demonstrated their faults, but that's not much help in shaping the future. I recently defended the global warming science in a public debate. The opposition came mostly from libertarians who were sure it was all a conspiracy to justify a world government with totalitarian powers. They weren't against science, but they feared an authoritarian government. Our unfortunate experience in the mideast over the last few decades is that given democracy, the citizens will vote to impose majority views on minorities in the most draconian fashion. So it is not only democracy that is needed, but *liberal* democracy, democracy that preserves individual autonomy and values. The problem is how to inculcate a scientific attitude of tolerance for disagreement and uncertanity in people. Brent Meeker > > The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is > not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true > human strength; > ethics is the foundation of civilisation; > Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success > of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government > and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they > are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't > really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its > necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia; > the application of scientific method is transforming the human > species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile > grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours, > following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the > further application of the method, and so it will ever be. > > Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not > trivial, and it is not going to go away. > > Regards > > Mark Peaty CDES > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ > > > > > > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. >> >> Quentin >> >> 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method >>> >>> These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Mark Peaty CDES >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> David Nyman wrote: On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that > relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but > relationships entail existence and difference. I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. > Particles of matter are knots, > topological self entanglements of space-t
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to ensure that it doesn't. If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. "Agreeing to disagree" is an honourable stance when accompanied by respect. The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method. Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras, Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method, certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear, superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up. The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true human strength; ethics is the foundation of civilisation; Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia; the application of scientific method is transforming the human species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours, following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the further application of the method, and so it will ever be. Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not trivial, and it is not going to go away. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Quentin Anciaux wrote: > This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. > > Quentin > > 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method >> >> These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. >> >> Regards >> >> Mark Peaty CDES >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ >> >> >> >> >> >> David Nyman wrote: >>> On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but relationships entail existence and difference. >>> I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish >>> whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of >>> a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I >>> suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno >>> usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. >>> Particles of matter are knots, topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their properties depending on the number of self-crossings and whatever other structural/topological features occur. >>> Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno >>> has had something to say about this in the past. >>> If an mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. >>> Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. >>> 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to >>> imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' >>> - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of >>> orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality >>> >>> PS - Mark, what is CDES? >>> > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
On 22/06/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MP:
Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?
DN:
.and if they have babies, where the ortho-dimensional-hell are we going
to find baby-sitters? Seriously though folks, what I enjoy about such
speculations, pace more rigorous mathematico-physical investigation (of
which I am incapable), is to try to understand how they converge on the
implicit semantics we use to intuit meaning from the worlds we inhabit.
It's a bit like comparative philology, in the sense of reconciling
narratives coded in different symbols, to explicate a common set of
intuitions. But on the other hand this may just be what Russell, more
acerbically, calls gibberish (and he may be right!)
David
>
> MN: 'If an
> >> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
> >> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
> >
> > Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
> > 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
> > imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
> > - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
> > orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
>
> MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' a lovely way to put put it now isn't it> is exactly what I was
> thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be
> the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the
> universe writ small.
>
> one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where
> _our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty
> space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane
> predominates.
>
> Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
> interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
> we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
> compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
> i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
> in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
> related, do they have babies?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Peaty CDES
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
>
> David Nyman wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
> >> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
> >> relationships entail existence and difference.
> >
> > I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
> > whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
> > a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I
> > suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
> > usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification.
> >
> >> Particles of matter are knots,
> >> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
> >> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
> >> whatever other structural/topological features occur.
> >
> > Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno
> > has had something to say about this in the past.
> >
> >> If an
> >> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
> >> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
> >
> > Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
> > 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
> > imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
> > - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
> > orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >> DN: '
> >>
> >>> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
> >>> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
> >>> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> >>> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
> >>> a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
> >>> 'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
> >>> liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
> >>> feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
> >>> then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
> >>> continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
> >>> from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
> >> MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
> >> crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
> >> "Why is there anything at all?"
> >>
> >> As
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
MN: 'If an
>> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
>> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
>
> Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
> 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
> imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
> - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
> orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' is exactly what I was
thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be
the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the
universe writ small.
one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where
_our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty
space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane
predominates.
Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
David Nyman wrote:
> On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
>> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
>> relationships entail existence and difference.
>
> I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
> whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
> a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I
> suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
> usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification.
>
>> Particles of matter are knots,
>> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
>> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
>> whatever other structural/topological features occur.
>
> Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno
> has had something to say about this in the past.
>
>> If an
>> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
>> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
>
> Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
> 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
> imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
> - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
> orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
>
> David
>
>
>> DN: '
>>
>>> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
>>> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
>>> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
>>> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
>>> a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
>>> 'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
>>> liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
>>> feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
>>> then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
>>> continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
>>> from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
>> MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
>> crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
>> "Why is there anything at all?"
>>
>> As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
>> 'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
>> As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
>> explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
>> simple minded view :-)
>>
>> Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; "I don't exist"
>> is either metaphor or nonsense.
>> As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
>> parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
>> Currently this makes me sympathetic to
>> * a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
>> it's just not our brane/s] and
>> * a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.
>>
>> I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
>> unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
>> arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
>> that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
>> something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
>> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
>> relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
>> 'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
>> and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. Quentin 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method > > These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. > > Regards > > Mark Peaty CDES > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ > > > > > > David Nyman wrote: > > On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that > >> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but > >> relationships entail existence and difference. > > > > I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish > > whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of > > a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I > > suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno > > usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. > > > >> Particles of matter are knots, > >> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their > >> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and > >> whatever other structural/topological features occur. > > > > Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno > > has had something to say about this in the past. > > > >> If an > >> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide > >> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. > > > > Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. > > 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to > > imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' > > - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of > > orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality > > > > PS - Mark, what is CDES? > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ David Nyman wrote: > On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that >> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but >> relationships entail existence and difference. > > I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish > whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of > a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I > suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno > usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. > >> Particles of matter are knots, >> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their >> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and >> whatever other structural/topological features occur. > > Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno > has had something to say about this in the past. > >> If an >> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide >> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. > > Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. > 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to > imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' > - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of > orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality > > PS - Mark, what is CDES? > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
DN: '
> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
> a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
> 'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
> liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
> feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
> then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
> continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
> from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
"Why is there anything at all?"
As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)
Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; "I don't exist"
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
* a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
* a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.
I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
the other one provides what otherwise we must call
'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
waves with harmonics.
For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
face would connect with others in a 'quorum' or node. This
provides a potential explanation of quantum entanglement in that
if each of the two faces of a Janus connection were in different
particles, those particles might be fleeing from each other at
the speed of light, or something close to it, yet for that
particular Janus connection each face will still be simply the
back side of its twin such that their temporal separation might
be no more than the Planck time.
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
David Nyman wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:01 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
>> We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
>> (Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
>> reflexivity power of the number's themselves.
>
> I simply meant that in AR numbers 'assert themselves', in that they
> are taken as being (in some sense) primitive rather than being merely
> mental constructs (intuitionism, I think?) Is this not so?
>
>> OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure
>> there remains technical problems ...)
>
> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The
