Re: Re: Re: Impossible connections
Hi Richard Ruquist So what's your problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 11:35:29 Subject: Re: Re: Impossible connections Roger, I know Brian Greene personally and have read his book, Fabric of the Cosmos. He was a postdoc at my school. He is not a founder of string theory, Max Green is. His view of space is quite conventional except for the extra dimensions of string theory. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of sgtring theory) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4Uplaynext=1list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7Hfeature=results_main or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world space is that which results from places taken together.[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 Subject: Re: Impossible connections I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call
Re: Re: Re: Impossible connections
Roger, Brian definitely thinks that spacetime exists. You have said otherwise. Richard On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist So what's your problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 11:35:29 Subject: Re: Re: Impossible connections Roger, I know Brian Greene personally and have read his book, Fabric of the Cosmos. He was a postdoc at my school. He is not a founder of string theory, Max Green is. His view of space is quite conventional except for the extra dimensions of string theory. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of sgtring theory) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4Uplaynext=1list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7Hfeature=results_main or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world space is that which results from places taken together.[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 Subject: Re: Impossible connections I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Impossible connections
Hi Richard Ruquist I don't think he meant that spacetime physically exists. Spacetime is a formalism. Formalisms don't physically exist. In fact nothing theoretical physically exists. The pythagorean theorem doesn't physically exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-12, 07:28:42 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Impossible connections Roger, Brian definitely thinks that spacetime exists. You have said otherwise. Richard On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist So what's your problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 11:35:29 Subject: Re: Re: Impossible connections Roger, I know Brian Greene personally and have read his book, Fabric of the Cosmos. He was a postdoc at my school. He is not a founder of string theory, Max Green is. His view of space is quite conventional except for the extra dimensions of string theory. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of sgtring theory) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4Uplaynext=1list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7Hfeature=results_main or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world space is that which results from places taken together.[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 Subject: Re: Impossible connections I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote
Re: Impossible connections
Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. 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
Re: Impossible connections
I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Impossible connections
Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Re: Impossible connections
Hi Richard Ruquist Only the path is warped. If there's anything in it, it will be accordingly displaced. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:17:23 Subject: Re: Impossible connections Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble
Re: Re: Impossible connections
Hi Richard, The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of sgtring theory) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4Uplaynext=1list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7Hfeature=results_main or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world space is that which results from places taken together.[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 Subject: Re: Impossible connections I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism
Re: Re: Impossible connections
Roger, I know Brian Greene personally and have read his book, Fabric of the Cosmos. He was a postdoc at my school. He is not a founder of string theory, Max Green is. His view of space is quite conventional except for the extra dimensions of string theory. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard, The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of sgtring theory) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4Uplaynext=1list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7Hfeature=results_main or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world space is that which results from places taken together.[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 Subject: Re: Impossible connections I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can
Re: Impossible connections
On 10/11/2012 5:17 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. Why not? Spacetime is just the set of relations, i.e. intervals, between events. If those intervals satisfy the Minkowski metric the spacetime is flat. If they don't the spacetime is warped. 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: Impossible connections
Brent, According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime. Therefore a warped spacetime cannot be empty. The apparently flat spacetime that exists is due to dark energy, dark matter and visible matter. Although flat, it is hardly considered to be empty. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/11/2012 5:17 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. Why not? Spacetime is just the set of relations, i.e. intervals, between events. If those intervals satisfy the Minkowski metric the spacetime is flat. If they don't the spacetime is warped. 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. -- 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: Impossible connections
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:41:29 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Brent, According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime. Therefore a warped spacetime cannot be empty. Sure it can. What is mass? A relation between objects. Relativity shows us nothing if not that. Earth isn't orbiting a point in space, it is revolving around the sun, and will continue to do that regardless of where the sun goes. The apparently flat spacetime that exists The idea of spacetime being flat is pure analogy. There is no flatness or warpedness to spacetime - only to the functions of objects in relation to each other. Flat and warped are metaphorical - statistical, like a 'flatline' on an EEG or income report. There is nothing there at all in reality. Space is that which subjects infer is not separates objects from being the same thing. It's like the spaces between these letters - there isn't anything there to warp, but if I stretch the letters with Photoshop in an orderly way, I have figuratively changed their spatial relation...because I have altered the pixels, not because space actually exists. is due to dark energy, dark matter and visible matter. Although flat, it is hardly considered to be empty. Adding epicycles for 40 years... I feel certain that it is only a 'matter of time' before the whole Dr. Suess tower collapses into ashes and smoke. 'Dark' just means 'our equations only work if something were right here'. The Emperor's Dark Clothes, I say. Clearly. Obviously. I would bet my life on it. Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/MwJ_5R0Mgt0J. 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: Impossible connections
On 10/11/2012 9:41 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Brent, According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime. No, that's wrong. Mass-energy warps spacetime, but the Einstein equations have non-flat solutions with a zero stress-energy tensor. DeSitter showed this shortly after Eistein published. Therefore a warped spacetime cannot be empty. The apparently flat spacetime that exists The spacetime of this universe is not flat, only the space part is. is due to dark energy, dark matter and visible matter. Although flat, it is hardly considered to be empty. Nobody said it was empty. I was just correcting your misconception that spacetime had to be flat in the absence of matter. 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: Impossible connections
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:23:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: Nobody said it was empty. I was just correcting your misconception that spacetime had to be flat in the absence of matter. I'm saying that it is beyond empty. It is only the inferred distance between which objects define each other, nothing more. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2MZmDivHXnMJ. 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.
