Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:54:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? > You said "Potential energy is more than conceptual", so I am explaining why I disagree. Potential energy is entirely conceptual, just like any other potential, virtual, or symbolic value. Energy is a way of keeping track of what could happen, just as money is a way of keeping track of what people could do. Without people, we can see that money is just paper and numbers and metal bars. Without matter, energy is similarly nothing at all. > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > 1/17/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be > TwoAspects Theory > > > > > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > Hi Craig Weinberg > > 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. > > http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 > > 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy > stored > in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. > Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. > > > It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and > demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be > said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that > they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is > literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or > their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or > extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to > restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to > pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and > engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at > all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. > > > 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. > Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. > > Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the > changing positions of matter, nothing else. > > Craig > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] > 1/15/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Why not ? There are gravitational waves. > > > How do you know there are gravitational waves? > > > But earthquakes usually initiate waves > by the sudden release of potential energy. > > > Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a > feeling of tension as different geological > plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an > orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike > because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is > no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a > tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical > fiction. > > Craig > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] > 1/14/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 > Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. > You can capture them with an antenna, etc. > > > Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? > > From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to > the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal > waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks > like when one se
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:16, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The self-reference to phenomenol perception shows up in the monad for an object, which is always from that monad's pov. OK. In the sense that I can interpret this in purely arithmetical terms. The convolution operator is just a conjecture, since it appears in systems theory and signal processing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution "In mathematics and, in particular, functional analysis, convolution is a mathematical operation on two functions f and g, producing a third function that is typically viewed as a modified version of one of the original functions, giving the area overlap between the two functions as a function of the amount that one of the original functions is translated. Convolution is similar to cross-correlation. It has applications that include probability, statistics, c omputer vision, image and signal processing, electrical engineering, and differential equations. " Hmm... OK. I was hoping about a more precise link between your monads, and convolution. I do think that Fourier transform, wavelets, convolution play some role in perception, perhaps in consciousness. They do play a role in the apparent matter (position and impulsion are basically Fourier transforms of each other, as all complementary observable). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? >From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the >waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in >empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one >sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks >like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content ----- From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture i
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Stephen P. King Ultimately the PEH. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 17:47:35 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 1/16/2013 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a > slide show. Hi Roger, What determines the sequencing of the 'slides' and their rate of transition? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 17 Jan 2013, at 14:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You are right. But UDA shows that if comp is correct, and QM is correct, then the second has to be a mathematical consequence of the first. Agreed, just as I put it above. So, let us derive the physics from comp, I do believe that is primarily your concern. Well it is the concern of anyone wanting to get a TOE which includes a solution/explanation of the mind-body riddle. I am too old to learn modal logic. I would say that it is *far* simpler than string theory. (but anything new is hard after puberty!) I have eventually realize that modal logic is simple, but only if you know well classical propositional calculus, and only professional logicians seems to know it. Logic is the hardest branch of math, as people needs to understand, at the start, when they should not understand strings of symbols, and this is hard to taught. This year I have taught the soundness and completeness proof of classical propositional logic, and I have realized that it is very difficult for the students. Logic is simply not taught anywhere, except as a graduate specialization for mathematicians. So I will accept the results of arithmetics in a systems analysis that includes as modules: 1. the CTM for a compactified-substance subspace that derives the MWI Quantum Mind as well as 2. the physical world: Matter and Energy (that was created along with Space and the Compact Manifold CM Subspace). According to string theory the particles of fermionic matter are connected to membranes of the Quantum Mind by strings, a theory verified by LHC measurements of the viscosity of BEC quark/gluon plasma Hmm... That includes far too much for a computationalist. It can be OK, temporarily. If I am open for string theory, it is mainly because it already smells like number theory. I am already convinced that string theory will be a major tool for a general theory of diophantine polynomial equation, no matter what. I am even afraid that number theorist could find the TOE before the theologians, and that could mean some more millennia of hiding qualia and person from the picture. Pratt and BEC duality connect the Physical to the Mind as well as strings. The connection here is interesting but still too weak as to provide the clues needed to solve the mind body problem in the computationalist theory of mind. This should follow from the paper I have referenced. I know that some people dislike this, but with comp the mind reality is much bigger than the physical reality. Physical reality is the derivative of the mind reality, and you can picture the mind as a big volumic sphere, and the physical reality as its surface. The sphere can represent the universal dovetailing, or the (sigma_1) arithmetical truth, and the surface of the sphere as the "appearance seen from inside the sphere, taking into account that no machines can know on which particular universal system she run, or which computations support her. and then we can compare with nature. which I claim is best represented by quantum string theory I am open to that hypothesis, but to get both the qualia and the quanta, we must derive them from numbers and their self-referential abilities. Again, that is the result of the UD Argument. Agreed- both quantum mind and its qualia come from arithmetics Everything should come from arithmetic (or Turing equivalent). Quanta, strings, qualia, suffering, taxes, death, ... even the gods, goddesses and "God" Itself. If nature refutes comp, then we have learned something, but up to now, thanks to QM, the two physics fits well. Can you provide a reference for that claim? Is it your work? Yes, it is the second part. I divide my work in two parts: UDA and AUDA, i.e. UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument (or Universal Dovetailer Paradox, as I call it before defending this as a PhD thesis), and AUDA = Arithmetical UDA, it is the translation of the argument in arithmetic (or in any Turing Universal machine's language), and the answer of the machine (but also to its "guardian angel": the machine is mute on this, unless she too assume comp, and some amount of self-consistency (but not much so as to avoid the consequence of Gödel's second theorem). Bruno I do not yet appreciate the intricacies of self-referential CTM or Godel. How is your work different from Godel's, to ask a naive question? Naive questions are the best questions. Now if I compare myself to Gödel, I *will* look like a crackpot ... (but that's not quite important). Gödel's main contribution are the completeness (of predicate logic) in 1930 (his master thesis). Then his "famous" incompleteness theorem in 1931. But he has also many other contributions, notably in set theory (like the relative consistency of the continuum axiom, and t
Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. > > http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 > > 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy > stored > in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. > Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. > It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. > > 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. > Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. > Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > 1/15/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content ----- > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Why not ? There are gravitational waves. > > > How do you know there are gravitational waves? > > > But earthquakes usually initiate waves > by the sudden release of potential energy. > > > Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a > feeling of tension as different geological > plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an > orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike > because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is > no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a > tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical > fiction. > > Craig > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] > 1/14/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 > Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. > You can capture them with an antenna, etc. > > > Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? > > From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to > the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal > waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks > like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied > organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and > optical senses. > > > > I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, > you seem to have some interesting ideas. > > Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves > are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. > > > Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. > > > Craig > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] > 1/13/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 > Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory > > > EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify > them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and > nonphysical. > The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap > between the physical and the mind in a mind/body dual
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Bruno Marchal The self-reference to phenomenol perception shows up in the monad for an object, which is always from that monad's pov. The convolution operator is just a conjecture, since it appears in systems theory and signal processing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution "In mathematics and, in particular, functional analysis, convolution is a mathematical operation on two functions f and g, producing a third function that is typically viewed as a modified version of one of the original functions, giving the area overlap between the two functions as a function of the amount that one of the original functions is translated. Convolution is similar to cross-correlation. It has applications that include probability, statistics, c omputer vision, image and signal processing, electrical engineering, and differential equations. " [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 06:08:26 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I seem to have been using words sloppily. You can't get away with that with a mathematician :-) Let me try again. The phenomenol is what "appears" to be out there. OK, but it is not only that. In fact, with the exception of truth, all hypostases are epistemological modalities of self-reference. And yes, the experience of it is internal. And you said: "I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need "just" to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp & p). That works!" I was thinking of Secondness as that black box. With Firstness as the input signal and Thirdness as the output signal. That's weird. Of course I use 1p and 3p in some precise technical sense for the UD argument, and then again in some related sense, but formal, in the interview of the universal machine. Then you have a typical linear system (if that's the right word). I was suggesting that the box be the convolution function, as in systems theory. You might perhaps elaborate on this. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > The senses convert the phenomenol space-time "world out there" I don't grasp how something phenomenal can be "out there". > into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored > internally as memories. > > A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Space-time is also experienced internally. All experience are "internal". > > Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts > MY view of the physical into its corresponding > personal nonphysical state. I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need "just" to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp & p). That works! Bruno > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/16/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 > Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Hi Roger, > > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal > dimensions? > > > > > I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily > related to lines and circles), > > Lines and circles are spatial geometries. > > > > They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then > "geometry" is a word having many interpretation too. > > > > > > > and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. > A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its > neighborhood. > > All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. > > > I don't think that an experience can be s
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> >>> That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently >>> sensitive. I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, each perceiving all other monads instantly, >>> >>> >>> >>> How? And where does the Calabi-Yau CM come from? >> >> >> That is just simple string theory. You know that don't you? > > > Sure. But where does the string comes from? Where does QM comes from. With > comp we cannot point on any experiment in physics and say look. That's the > UDA point. We can only search the explanation in our head, or better, in the > head of the "universal" machine/number. > > That is like asking, where does arithmetic come from. We do not know where it came from, but we are pretty sure that it is, both arithmetic and dimensions and strings. Richard > >> >> >>> >>> It seems to me that perception is a process (unlike consciousness, >>> despite >>> strong relation). As a "physical" process, it can't be simultaneous. >> >> >> Here i was making a pun with the perception of Liebniz's monads >> who claim to be able to perceive the entire universe however with some >> fuzziness. I could have well used the reflection of all the jewels in >> Indras pearls or the 1/r mapping of the Calabi-Yau Compact manifolds. >> >> I agree that perception is a algorithmic process. >> >> We apparently disagree on how simultaneous the process can be. >> I claim instant processing based on it being a frictionless BEC >> where thoughts are instantaneous. > > > But string theory is supposed to marry QM and relativity. I have no notion > of "instantaneous" in that context. Simultaneity is a conjecture based on the block universe which lacks time plus undone string physics for 3D monad perception, the 2D is done, and Buddhism. Richard > > Bruno > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > What do you mean by "quantum mind"? > keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to > be > derived from the "digital seen from inside". > And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more > than > choosing our parents. > > Bruno If the arithmetic computations do not predict/derive quantum mechanics, they are not pertinent. >>> >>> >>> >>> You are right. >>> But UDA shows that if comp is correct, and QM is correct, then the second >>> has to be a mathematical consequence of the first. >> >> >> Agreed, just as I put it above. >>> >>> >>> So, let us derive the physics from comp, >> >> >> I do believe that is primarily your concern. > > > Well it is the concern of anyone wanting to get a TOE which includes a > solution/explanation of the mind-body riddle. > > I am too old to learn modal logic. So I will accept the results of arithmetics in a systems analysis that includes as modules: 1. the CTM for a compactified-substance subspace that derives the MWI Quantum Mind as well as 2. the physical world: Matter and Energy (that was created along with Space and the Compact Manifold CM Subspace). According to string theory the particles of fermionic matter are connected to membranes of the Quantum Mind by strings, a theory verified by LHC measurements of the viscosity of BEC quark/gluon plasma Pratt and BEC duality connect the Physical to the Mind as well as strings. > >> >> >>> and then we can compare with nature. >> >> >> which I claim is best represented by quantum string theory > > > I am open to that hypothesis, but to get both the qualia and the quanta, we > must derive them from numbers and their self-referential abilities. > Again, that is the result of the UD Argument. Agreed- both quantum mind and its qualia come from arithmetics > > >> >> >> >>> If nature refutes comp, then we have learned something, but up to >>> now, thanks to QM, the two physics fits well. >> >> >> Can you provide a reference for that claim? Is it your work? > > > Yes, it is the second part. I divide my work in two parts: UDA and AUDA, > i.e. UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument (or Universal Dovetailer Paradox, > as I call it before defending this as a PhD thesis), and AUDA = Arithmetical > UDA, it is the translation of the argument in arithmetic (or in any Turing > Universal machine's language), and the answer of the machine (but also to > its "guardian angel": the machine is mute on this, unless she too assume > comp, and some amount of self-consistency (but not much so as to avoid the > consequence of Gödel's second theorem). > > Bruno > > I do not yet appreciate the intricacies of self-referential CTM or Godel. How is your work different from Godel's, to ask a naive question? Richard > >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> The antropic principle of computations. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, 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. >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I seem to have been using words sloppily. You can't get away with that with a mathematician :-) Let me try again. The phenomenol is what "appears" to be out there. OK, but it is not only that. In fact, with the exception of truth, all hypostases are epistemological modalities of self-reference. And yes, the experience of it is internal. And you said: "I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need "just" to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp & p). That works!" I was thinking of Secondness as that black box. With Firstness as the input signal and Thirdness as the output signal. That's weird. Of course I use 1p and 3p in some precise technical sense for the UD argument, and then again in some related sense, but formal, in the interview of the universal machine. Then you have a typical linear system (if that's the right word). I was suggesting that the box be the convolution function, as in systems theory. You might perhaps elaborate on this. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > The senses convert the phenomenol space-time "world out there" I don't grasp how something phenomenal can be "out there". > into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored > internally as memories. > > A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Space-time is also experienced internally. All experience are "internal". > > Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts > MY view of the physical into its corresponding > personal nonphysical state. I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need "just" to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp & p). That works! Bruno > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/16/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 > Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Hi Roger, > > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal > dimensions? > > > > > I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily > related to lines and circles), > > Lines and circles are spatial geometries. > > > > They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then > "geometry" is a word having many interpretation too. > > > > > > > and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. > A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its > neighborhood. > > All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. > > > I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I > argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on "deep > dreams/computations". > It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some > primitive space time. > > > > > > > A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or > temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have > concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences > in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to > the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated > on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This > wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re- > present the commonality which we understand internally but as an > exteriorized, generic symbol. > > > > As you know, with comp, it is the "concrete real substance" which > belong to the (quite useful locally) metaphors. > > > > > > Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, > we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter > uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing > itself - it has no power to do anything by it
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What do you mean by "quantum mind"? keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be derived from the "digital seen from inside". And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more than choosing our parents. Bruno If the arithmetic computations do not predict/derive quantum mechanics, they are not pertinent. You are right. But UDA shows that if comp is correct, and QM is correct, then the second has to be a mathematical consequence of the first. Agreed, just as I put it above. So, let us derive the physics from comp, I do believe that is primarily your concern. Well it is the concern of anyone wanting to get a TOE which includes a solution/explanation of the mind-body riddle. and then we can compare with nature. which I claim is best represented by quantum string theory I am open to that hypothesis, but to get both the qualia and the quanta, we must derive them from numbers and their self-referential abilities. Again, that is the result of the UD Argument. If nature refutes comp, then we have learned something, but up to now, thanks to QM, the two physics fits well. Can you provide a reference for that claim? Is it your work? Yes, it is the second part. I divide my work in two parts: UDA and AUDA, i.e. UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument (or Universal Dovetailer Paradox, as I call it before defending this as a PhD thesis), and AUDA = Arithmetical UDA, it is the translation of the argument in arithmetic (or in any Turing Universal machine's language), and the answer of the machine (but also to its "guardian angel": the machine is mute on this, unless she too assume comp, and some amount of self-consistency (but not much so as to avoid the consequence of Gödel's second theorem). Bruno Bruno The antropic principle of computations. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, each perceiving all other monads instantly, How? And where does the Calabi-Yau CM come from? That is just simple string theory. You know that don't you? Sure. But where does the string comes from? Where does QM comes from. With comp we cannot point on any experiment in physics and say look. That's the UDA point. We can only search the explanation in our head, or better, in the head of the "universal" machine/number. It seems to me that perception is a process (unlike consciousness, despite strong relation). As a "physical" process, it can't be simultaneous. Here i was making a pun with the perception of Liebniz's monads who claim to be able to perceive the entire universe however with some fuzziness. I could have well used the reflection of all the jewels in Indras pearls or the 1/r mapping of the Calabi-Yau Compact manifolds. I agree that perception is a algorithmic process. We apparently disagree on how simultaneous the process can be. I claim instant processing based on it being a frictionless BEC where thoughts are instantaneous. But string theory is supposed to marry QM and relativity. I have no notion of "instantaneous" in that context. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 1/16/2013 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a slide show. Hi Roger, What determines the sequencing of the 'slides' and their rate of transition? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a slide show. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 11:23:57 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. >> >> >> >> I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, >> Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, >> each perceiving all other monads instantly, > > > How? And where does the Calabi-Yau CM come from? That is just simple string theory. You know that don't you? > > It seems to me that perception is a process (unlike consciousness, despite > strong relation). As a "physical" process, it can't be simultaneous. Here i was making a pun with the perception of Liebniz's monads who claim to be able to perceive the entire universe however with some fuzziness. I could have well used the reflection of all the jewels in Indras pearls or the 1/r mapping of the Calabi-Yau Compact manifolds. I agree that perception is a algorithmic process. We apparently disagree on how simultaneous the process can be. I claim instant processing based on it being a frictionless BEC where thoughts are instantaneous. Richard > > Bruno > > > > >> as in "indra's net of jewels" in buddhism. > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Bruno Marchal I seem to have been using words sloppily. You can't get away with that with a mathematician :-) Let me try again. The phenomenol is what "appears" to be out there. And yes, the experience of it is internal. And you said: "I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need "just" to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp & p). That works!" I was thinking of Secondness as that black box. With Firstness as the input signal and Thirdness as the output signal. Then you have a typical linear system (if that's the right word). I was suggesting that the box be the convolution function, as in systems theory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > The senses convert the phenomenol space-time "world out there" I don't grasp how something phenomenal can be "out there". > into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored > internally as memories. > > A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Space-time is also experienced internally. All experience are "internal". > > Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts > MY view of the physical into its corresponding > personal nonphysical state. I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need "just" to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp & p). That works! Bruno > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/16/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > ----- Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 > Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > Hi Roger, > > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal > dimensions? > > > > > I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily > related to lines and circles), > > Lines and circles are spatial geometries. > > > > They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then > "geometry" is a word having many interpretation too. > > > > > > > and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. > A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its > neighborhood. > > All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. > > > I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I > argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on "deep > dreams/computations". > It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some > primitive space time. > > > > > > > A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or > temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have > concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences > in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to > the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated > on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This > wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re- > present the commonality which we understand internally but as an > exteriorized, generic symbol. > > > > As you know, with comp, it is the "concrete real substance" which > belong to the (quite useful locally) metaphors. > > > > > > Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, > we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter > uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing > itself - it has no power to do anything by itself, it is pure > fiction (albeit fiction which is informative about sense on all > levels of realism, but only from the fictional 3p voyeur perspective). > > > > That is coherent with non-comp, indeed. But I have no faith in > substances. > > > Bruno > > > > > > Craig > > > > > Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), >
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> What do you mean by "quantum mind"? >>> keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be >>> derived from the "digital seen from inside". >>> And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more than >>> choosing our parents. >>> >>> Bruno >> >> >> If the arithmetic computations >> do not predict/derive >> quantum mechanics, >> they are not pertinent. > > > You are right. > But UDA shows that if comp is correct, and QM is correct, then the second > has to be a mathematical consequence of the first. Agreed, just as I put it above. > > So, let us derive the physics from comp, I do believe that is primarily your concern. >and then we can compare with nature. which I claim is best represented by quantum string theory >If nature refutes comp, then we have learned something, but up to > now, thanks to QM, the two physics fits well. Can you provide a reference for that claim? Is it your work? > > Bruno > > > > >> The antropic principle of computations. >> Richard >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. >> >> >> >> I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, >> Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, >> each perceiving all other monads instantly, > > > How? And where does the Calabi-Yau CM come from? That is just simple string theory. You know that don't you? > > It seems to me that perception is a process (unlike consciousness, despite > strong relation). As a "physical" process, it can't be simultaneous. Here i was making a pun with the perception of Liebniz's monads who claim to be able to perceive the entire universe however with some fuzziness. I could have well used the reflection of all the jewels in Indras pearls or the 1/r mapping of the Calabi-Yau Compact manifolds. I agree that perception is a algorithmic process. We apparently disagree on how simultaneous the process can be. I claim instant processing based on it being a frictionless BEC where thoughts are instantaneous. Richard > > Bruno > > > > >> as in "indra's net of jewels" in buddhism. > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What do you mean by "quantum mind"? keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be derived from the "digital seen from inside". And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more than choosing our parents. Bruno If the arithmetic computations do not predict/derive quantum mechanics, they are not pertinent. You are right. But UDA shows that if comp is correct, and QM is correct, then the second has to be a mathematical consequence of the first. So, let us derive the physics from comp, and then we can compare with nature. If nature refutes comp, then we have learned something, but up to now, thanks to QM, the two physics fits well. Bruno The antropic principle of computations. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The senses convert the phenomenol space-time "world out there" I don't grasp how something phenomenal can be "out there". into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored internally as memories. A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Space-time is also experienced internally. All experience are "internal". Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts MY view of the physical into its corresponding personal nonphysical state. I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need "just" to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp & p). That works! Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), Lines and circles are spatial geometries. They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then "geometry" is a word having many interpretation too. and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on "deep dreams/computations". It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some primitive space time. A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re- present the commonality which we understand internally but as an exteriorized, generic symbol. As you know, with comp, it is the "concrete real substance" which belong to the (quite useful locally) metaphors. Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing itself - it has no power to do anything by itself, it is pure fiction (albeit fiction which is informative about sense on all levels of realism, but only from the fictional 3p voyeur perspective). That is coherent with non-comp, indeed. But I have no faith in substances. Bruno Craig Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of "arbitrary" functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the worl
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, each perceiving all other monads instantly, How? And where does the Calabi-Yau CM come from? It seems to me that perception is a process (unlike consciousness, despite strong relation). As a "physical" process, it can't be simultaneous. Bruno as in "indra's net of jewels" in buddhism. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Bruno Marchal The senses convert the phenomenol space-time "world out there" into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored internally as memories. A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts MY view of the physical into its corresponding personal nonphysical state. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), Lines and circles are spatial geometries. They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then "geometry" is a word having many interpretation too. and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on "deep dreams/computations". It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some primitive space time. A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re-present the commonality which we understand internally but as an exteriorized, generic symbol. As you know, with comp, it is the "concrete real substance" which belong to the (quite useful locally) metaphors. Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing itself - it has no power to do anything by itself, it is pure fiction (albeit fiction which is informative about sense on all levels of realism, but only from the fictional 3p voyeur perspective). That is coherent with non-comp, indeed. But I have no faith in substances. Bruno Craig Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of "arbitrary" functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 "Forever
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > What do you mean by "quantum mind"? > keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be > derived from the "digital seen from inside". > And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more than > choosing our parents. > > Bruno If the arithmetic computations do not predict/derive quantum mechanics, they are not pertinent. The antropic principle of computations. Richard -- 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 21:13, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard I can interprete what you say in the comp MWI interpretations of the average ideally correct universal machine in arithmetic. Not yet sure you would agree or appreciate the key role of the "M" (Many dreams, many worlds, ...). Bruno Yes. In some sense the best machine for the best universe. I accept that the quantum mind instantly computes every MWI possibility, but see how the quantum mind might choose only the best possibility to become the single best physical universe. Richard What do you mean by "quantum mind"? keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be derived from the "digital seen from inside". And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more than choosing our parents. Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen -- 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/ever
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), Lines and circles are spatial geometries. They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then "geometry" is a word having many interpretation too. and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on "deep dreams/computations". It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some primitive space time. A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re- present the commonality which we understand internally but as an exteriorized, generic symbol. As you know, with comp, it is the "concrete real substance" which belong to the (quite useful locally) metaphors. Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing itself - it has no power to do anything by itself, it is pure fiction (albeit fiction which is informative about sense on all levels of realism, but only from the fictional 3p voyeur perspective). That is coherent with non-comp, indeed. But I have no faith in substances. Bruno Craig Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of "arbitrary" functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything- li...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything- li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribe
Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? >From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the >waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in >empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one >sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks >like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. T
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:11:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal > > > wrote: > > > > On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > >>> That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently > sensitive. > > > I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, > Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, > each perceiving all other monads instantly, > as in "indra's net of jewels" in buddhism. > > > I agree more or less, although it gets difficult as such a distant and primitive level of description to say whether it is a literal net of monads or a monadic theater projecting stories in a net-like distribution of perspectives. I tend to think that electromagnetism is the process by which atoms generate spacetime and divide from each other rather than impulses or waves which travel through spacetime. Craig -- 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/-/I_qTpJGawd4J. 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Craig, >> You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie. >> However, yo might very well be right. >> Richard > > > Craig is often right, or well inspired, from the comp perspective. > But he is not valid when thinking that what he says needs non-comp, alas. > > Bruno > > > >> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. >>> >>> >>> >>> How do you know that they don't exist in matter? >>> Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't see anything as nonphysical, only public and private ranges of >>> physics. >>> The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, each perceiving all other monads instantly, as in "indra's net of jewels" in buddhism. >>> Once >>> you consider that possibility, there is no need to imagine phantom >>> particles >>> and waves in a vacuum full of 'energy'...it's all Emperor's New Clothes >>> stuff that keeps coming back again and again - aether, phlogiston, prana, >>> chi, radiation, élan vital. It's screamingly obvious to me now that these >>> are all the same misapplication of private range physics to public range >>> experience because we cannot accept that private experience is real or >>> that >>> public realism is an experience. >>> What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. >>> >>> >>> >>> None of it is real. EM waves are feelings that matter shares with matter. >>> Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and >>> quantum >>> mind is just plain old ordinary sense. >>> I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. >>> >>> >>> >>> A universe based on the foundation of perceptual participation (sense) >>> makes >>> MWI unlikely and irrelevant. >>> But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. >>> >>> >>> >>> Consciousness isn't an energy, energy is a model of sensory-motor >>> experience >>> with the personal orientation stripped out of it. Useful, but not >>> concretely >>> real - just another name for the presumed external universal resource >>> like >>> élan vital. >>> Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. >>> >>> >>> >>> The more sense elaborates within itself, fragments into layers upon >>> layers >>> of embodied feelings, the more the quality is enriched. Consciousness >>> encapsulates many awarenesses, awareness encapsulates feelings, feeling >>> encapsulates perceptions, perception encapsulates sensations, etc. It is >>> the >>> elaboration of sense which allows experiences to become intelligent, and >>> with intelligence, the higher quality of sense educates the motivations, >>> expands the experience of time so that instincts can be interrupted and >>> replaced by more refined considerations. This virtuous cycle between >>> intelligence and free will is inevitable, but it is will beneath >>> intelligence which integrates
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Why not ? There are gravitational waves. > How do you know there are gravitational waves? > But earthquakes usually initiate waves > by the sudden release of potential energy. > Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > 1/14/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 > Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects > Theory > > > > > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. > You can capture them with an antenna, etc. > > > Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? > > From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to > the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal > waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks > like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied > organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and > optical senses. > > > > I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, > you seem to have some interesting ideas. > > Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves > are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. > > > Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. > > > Craig > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] > 1/13/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 > Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory > > > EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify > them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and > nonphysical. > The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap > between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger > puts it, a dual aspect theory. > > What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum > mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the > size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at > the Planck scale. > > I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle > size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it > does not rule out MWI. > > But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the > Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum > Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be > used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back > instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra > worlds of MWI. > > Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So > I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of > consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are > needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any > particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each > of us possesses similar consciousness. > > Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness > investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I > base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish > almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of > consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may > differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. > Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. > Richard > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > > > How can you have a wave
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Craig, You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie. However, yo might very well be right. Richard Craig is often right, or well inspired, from the comp perspective. But he is not valid when thinking that what he says needs non-comp, alas. Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. How do you know that they don't exist in matter? Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. I don't see anything as nonphysical, only public and private ranges of physics. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. Once you consider that possibility, there is no need to imagine phantom particles and waves in a vacuum full of 'energy'...it's all Emperor's New Clothes stuff that keeps coming back again and again - aether, phlogiston, prana, chi, radiation, élan vital. It's screamingly obvious to me now that these are all the same misapplication of private range physics to public range experience because we cannot accept that private experience is real or that public realism is an experience. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. None of it is real. EM waves are feelings that matter shares with matter. Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and quantum mind is just plain old ordinary sense. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. A universe based on the foundation of perceptual participation (sense) makes MWI unlikely and irrelevant. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Consciousness isn't an energy, energy is a model of sensory-motor experience with the personal orientation stripped out of it. Useful, but not concretely real - just another name for the presumed external universal resource like élan vital. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. The more sense elaborates within itself, fragments into layers upon layers of embodied feelings, the more the quality is enriched. Consciousness encapsulates many awarenesses, awareness encapsulates feelings, feeling encapsulates perceptions, perception encapsulates sensations, etc. It is the elaboration of sense which allows experiences to become intelligent, and with intelligence, the higher quality of sense educates the motivations, expands the experience of time so that instincts can be interrupted and replaced by more refined considerations. This virtuous cycle between intelligence and free will is inevitable, but it is will beneath intelligence which integrates information and utilizes it. Craig Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there shoul
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Richard Ruquist OK--- in the mind. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:45:18 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves > are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO this is necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI and Feynman renormalization. Richard -- 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: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? >From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the >waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in >empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one >sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks >like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi Roger, > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi everything-list, >> >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. >> Here's why: >> >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves >> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. >> >> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed >> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave >> and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird >> happening. >> >> My own view is that the weirdness arises because the >> waves and the photons are residents of two completely >> different but interpenetrating worlds, where: >> >> 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, >> where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) >> "extended in space", >> >> 2) the quan
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify >> them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and >> nonphysical. >> The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap >> between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger >> puts it, a dual aspect theory. >> >> What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum >> mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the >> size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at >> the Planck scale. >> >> I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle >> size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it >> does not rule out MWI. >> >> But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the >> Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum >> Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be >> used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back >> instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra >> worlds of MWI. >> >> Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So >> I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of >> consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are >> needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any >> particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each >> of us possesses similar consciousness. >> >> Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness >> investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I >> base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish >> almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of >> consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may >> differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. >> Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. >> Richard > > > > I can interprete what you say in the comp MWI interpretations of the > average ideally correct universal machine in arithmetic. > Not yet sure you would agree or appreciate the key role of the "M" (Many > dreams, many worlds, ...). > > Bruno > > Yes. In some sense the best machine for the best universe. I accept that the quantum mind instantly computes every MWI possibility, but see how the quantum mind might choose only the best possibility to become the single best physical universe. Richard Richard >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal >>> dimensions? >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough >>> wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen -- 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 op
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? > > > > I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related > to lines and circles), > Lines and circles are spatial geometries. > and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. > A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its > neighborhood. > All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re-present the commonality which we understand internally but as an exteriorized, generic symbol. Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing itself - it has no power to do anything by itself, it is pure fiction (albeit fiction which is informative about sense on all levels of realism, but only from the fictional 3p voyeur perspective). Craig > > Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so > simple wave can be see as the base in the space of "arbitrary" functions > (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). > > The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is > an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they > were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the > relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of > where you can find an electron, for an example. > I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non > physical relations between numbers). > > Bruno > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough > > > wrote: > >> Hi everything-list, >> >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. >> Here's why: >> >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves >> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. >> >> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed >> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave >> and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird >> happening. >> >> My own view is that the weirdness arises because the >> waves and the photons are residents of two completely >> different but interpenetrating worlds, where: >> >> 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, >> where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) >> "extended in space", >> >> 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of >> the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no >> extension in space. >> >> Under these conditions, there is no need >> to create an additional physical world, since each >> can exist as aspects of the the same world, >> one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like >> mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world >> beyond spacetime. >> >> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] >> 1/12/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-li...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/lHOj0lxxoIkJ. 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 12 Jan 2013, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard I can interpreted what you say in the comp MWI interpretations of the average ideally correct universal machine in arithmetic. Not yet sure you would agree or appreciate the key role of the "M" (Many dreams, many worlds, ...). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of "arbitrary" functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen -- 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:34:37 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > Craig, > You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie. > However, yo might very well be right. > Richard > Mother nature's son? > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > >> > >> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. > > > > > > How do you know that they don't exist in matter? > > > >> > >> Yet I would classify > >> them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and > >> nonphysical. > > > > > > I don't see anything as nonphysical, only public and private ranges of > > physics. > > > >> > >> The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap > >> between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger > >> puts it, a dual aspect theory. > > > > > > That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. > Once > > you consider that possibility, there is no need to imagine phantom > particles > > and waves in a vacuum full of 'energy'...it's all Emperor's New Clothes > > stuff that keeps coming back again and again - aether, phlogiston, > prana, > > chi, radiation, élan vital. It's screamingly obvious to me now that > these > > are all the same misapplication of private range physics to public range > > experience because we cannot accept that private experience is real or > that > > public realism is an experience. > > > >> > >> What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum > >> mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the > >> size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at > >> the Planck scale. > > > > > > None of it is real. EM waves are feelings that matter shares with > matter. > > Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and > quantum > > mind is just plain old ordinary sense. > > > >> > >> > >> I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle > >> size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it > >> does not rule out MWI. > > > > > > A universe based on the foundation of perceptual participation (sense) > makes > > MWI unlikely and irrelevant. > > > >> > >> > >> But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the > >> Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum > >> Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be > >> used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back > >> instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra > >> worlds of MWI. > >> > >> Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So > >> I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of > >> consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are > >> needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any > >> particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each > >> of us possesses similar consciousness. > >> > >> Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness > >> investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I > >> base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish > >> almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of > >> consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. > > > > > > Consciousness isn't an energy, energy is a model of sensory-motor > experience > > with the personal orientation stripped out of it. Useful, but not > concretely > > real - just another name for the presumed external universal resource > like > > élan vital. > > > >> > >> Intelligence and free will may > >> differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. > >> Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. > > > > > > The more sense elaborates within itself, fragments into layers upon > layers > > of embodied feelings, the more the quality is enriched. Consciousness > > encapsulates many awarenesses, awareness encapsulates feelings, feeling > > encapsulates perceptions, perception encapsulates sensations, etc. It is > the > > elaboration of sense which allows experiences to become intelligent, and > > with intelligence, the higher quality of sense educates the motivations, > > expands the experience of time so that instincts can be interrupted and > > replaced by more refined considerations. This virtuous cycle between > > intelligence and free will is inevitable, but it is will beneath > > intelligence which integrates information and utilizes it. > > > > Craig > > > >> Richard > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes > > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Roger, > >> > > >> > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal > >> > dimensions? > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 a
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. > You can capture them with an antenna, etc. > Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? >From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. > > I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, > you seem to have some interesting ideas. > > Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves > are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. > Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > 1/13/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 > Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory > > > EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify > them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and > nonphysical. > The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap > between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger > puts it, a dual aspect theory. > > What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum > mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the > size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at > the Planck scale. > > I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle > size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it > does not rule out MWI. > > But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the > Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum > Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be > used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back > instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra > worlds of MWI. > > Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So > I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of > consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are > needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any > particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each > of us possesses similar consciousness. > > Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness > investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I > base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish > almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of > consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may > differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. > Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. > Richard > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal > dimensions? > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> > >> Hi everything-list, > >> > >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. > >> Here's why: > >> > >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, > >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves > >> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. > >> > >> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed > >> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave > >> and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird > >> happening. > >> > >> My own view is that the weirdness arises because the > >> waves and the photons are residents of two completely > >> different but interpenetrating worlds, where: > >> > >> 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, > >> where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) > >> "extended in space", > >> > >> 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of > >> the nonphysical world (the world of mind), w
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Roger wrote: > but EM waves >> are physical (electrons) However, EM waves collapse to photons, not electrons. And I would put EM waves on the mental side and photons on the physical side. But light seems to bridge the boundary. Richard -- 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: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves > are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO this is necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI and Feynman renormalization. Richard -- 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: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi Roger, > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi everything-list, >> >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. >> Here's why: >> >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves >> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. >> >> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed >> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave >> and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird >> happening. >> >> My own view is that the weirdness arises because the >> waves and the photons are residents of two completely >> different but interpenetrating worlds, where: >> >> 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, >> where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) >> "extended in space", >> >> 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of >> the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no >> extension in space. >> >> Under these conditions, there is no need >> to create an additional physical world, since each >> can exist as aspects of the the same world, >> one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like >> mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world >> beyond spacetime. >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/12/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> >> -- >> 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
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 12 Jan 2013, at 12:52, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) "extended in space", 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, *all* physical worlds are internal views of one simple arithmetical reality. Many-worlds is a priori neutral on the primitive physicalness of the world. Computationalism is not neutral on this. Adopting the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science leads to many (immaterial) dreams, and it makes open the question if some of those dreams define a notion of entirely well defined "physical worlds". Worlds can be defined as maximal consistent extension of dreams. one moving in spactime and being physical, Phenomenologically. the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. "moving" don't apply clearly to "mind". It is part of the epistemological appearance. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Craig, You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie. However, yo might very well be right. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: >> >> EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. > > > How do you know that they don't exist in matter? > >> >> Yet I would classify >> them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and >> nonphysical. > > > I don't see anything as nonphysical, only public and private ranges of > physics. > >> >> The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap >> between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger >> puts it, a dual aspect theory. > > > That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. Once > you consider that possibility, there is no need to imagine phantom particles > and waves in a vacuum full of 'energy'...it's all Emperor's New Clothes > stuff that keeps coming back again and again - aether, phlogiston, prana, > chi, radiation, élan vital. It's screamingly obvious to me now that these > are all the same misapplication of private range physics to public range > experience because we cannot accept that private experience is real or that > public realism is an experience. > >> >> What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum >> mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the >> size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at >> the Planck scale. > > > None of it is real. EM waves are feelings that matter shares with matter. > Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and quantum > mind is just plain old ordinary sense. > >> >> >> I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle >> size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it >> does not rule out MWI. > > > A universe based on the foundation of perceptual participation (sense) makes > MWI unlikely and irrelevant. > >> >> >> But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the >> Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum >> Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be >> used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back >> instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra >> worlds of MWI. >> >> Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So >> I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of >> consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are >> needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any >> particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each >> of us possesses similar consciousness. >> >> Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness >> investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I >> base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish >> almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of >> consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. > > > Consciousness isn't an energy, energy is a model of sensory-motor experience > with the personal orientation stripped out of it. Useful, but not concretely > real - just another name for the presumed external universal resource like > élan vital. > >> >> Intelligence and free will may >> differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. >> Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. > > > The more sense elaborates within itself, fragments into layers upon layers > of embodied feelings, the more the quality is enriched. Consciousness > encapsulates many awarenesses, awareness encapsulates feelings, feeling > encapsulates perceptions, perception encapsulates sensations, etc. It is the > elaboration of sense which allows experiences to become intelligent, and > with intelligence, the higher quality of sense educates the motivations, > expands the experience of time so that instincts can be interrupted and > replaced by more refined considerations. This virtuous cycle between > intelligence and free will is inevitable, but it is will beneath > intelligence which integrates information and utilizes it. > > Craig > >> Richard >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> > Hi Roger, >> > >> > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal >> > dimensions? >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi everything-list, >> >> >> >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. >> >> Here's why: >> >> >> >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, >> >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves >> >> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. >> >> >> >> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed >> >> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave >> >> and the
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:33:11 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. How do you know that they don't exist in matter? > Yet I would classify > them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and > nonphysical. > I don't see anything as nonphysical, only public and private ranges of physics. > The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap > between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger > puts it, a dual aspect theory. > That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. Once you consider that possibility, there is no need to imagine phantom particles and waves in a vacuum full of 'energy'...it's all Emperor's New Clothes stuff that keeps coming back again and again - aether, phlogiston, prana, chi, radiation, élan vital. It's screamingly obvious to me now that these are all the same misapplication of private range physics to public range experience because we cannot accept that private experience is real or that public realism is an experience. > What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum > mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the > size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at > the Planck scale. > None of it is real. EM waves are feelings that matter shares with matter. Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and quantum mind is just plain old ordinary sense. > > I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle > size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it > does not rule out MWI. > A universe based on the foundation of perceptual participation (sense) makes MWI unlikely and irrelevant. > > But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the > Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum > Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be > used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back > instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra > worlds of MWI. > > Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So > I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of > consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are > needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any > particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each > of us possesses similar consciousness. > > Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness > investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I > base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish > almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of > consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Consciousness isn't an energy, energy is a model of sensory-motor experience with the personal orientation stripped out of it. Useful, but not concretely real - just another name for the presumed external universal resource like élan vital. > Intelligence and free will may > differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. > Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. > The more sense elaborates within itself, fragments into layers upon layers of embodied feelings, the more the quality is enriched. Consciousness encapsulates many awarenesses, awareness encapsulates feelings, feeling encapsulates perceptions, perception encapsulates sensations, etc. It is the elaboration of sense which allows experiences to become intelligent, and with intelligence, the higher quality of sense educates the motivations, expands the experience of time so that instincts can be interrupted and replaced by more refined considerations. This virtuous cycle between intelligence and free will is inevitable, but it is will beneath intelligence which integrates information and utilizes it. Craig Richard > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes > > > wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal > dimensions? > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi everything-list, > >> > >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. > >> Here's why: > >> > >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, > >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves > >> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. > >> > >> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed > >> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave > >> and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird > >> happening. > >> > >> My own view is that the weirdness arises because the > >> waves and the photons are residents of two completely > >> different but interpenetrating worlds, where:
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi Roger, > > How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi everything-list, >> >> I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. >> Here's why: >> >> I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, >> due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves >> are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. >> >> This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed >> in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave >> and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird >> happening. >> >> My own view is that the weirdness arises because the >> waves and the photons are residents of two completely >> different but interpenetrating worlds, where: >> >> 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, >> where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) >> "extended in space", >> >> 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of >> the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no >> extension in space. >> >> Under these conditions, there is no need >> to create an additional physical world, since each >> can exist as aspects of the the same world, >> one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like >> mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world >> beyond spacetime. >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/12/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi everything-list, > > I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. > Here's why: > > I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, > due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves > are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. > > This seems to deny "quantum weirdness" observed > in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave > and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird > happening. > > My own view is that the weirdness arises because the > waves and the photons are residents of two completely > different but interpenetrating worlds, where: > > 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, > where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) > "extended in space", > > 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of > the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no > extension in space. > > Under these conditions, there is no need > to create an additional physical world, since each > can exist as aspects of the the same world, > one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like > mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world > beyond spacetime. > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/12/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > > -- > 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.