Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 7:24 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Mar 2011, at 15:54, 1Z wrote: On Mar 8, 1:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2011, at 21:48, David Nyman wrote: On 7 March 2011 15:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Reduction is not

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 08/03/11 12:29, 1Z wrote: On Mar 8, 11:32 am, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/11 15:06, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 5:46 pm, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.comwrote: The measurement problem is the question of why, or even if, collapse occurs. Certainly no coherent

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 08/03/11 14:39, 1Z wrote: On Mar 8, 11:47 am, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/11 15:22, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.comwrote: On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote:Collapse appears to instruments as well as people We don't

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread David Nyman
Peter, your comments appear to illustrate a basic confusion between ontological and epistemological claims that makes me think that you haven't taken on board the fundamental distinction entailed in Bruno's original statement: Ontological reduction does not necessarily entail epistemological

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 12:50 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: Peter, your comments appear to illustrate a basic confusion between ontological and epistemological claims that makes me think that you haven't taken on board the fundamental distinction entailed in Bruno's original statement:

Re: STEP THREE (was Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)

2011-03-09 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 08/03/11 18:41, Bruno Marchal wrote: 1) SWE what is SWE? -- 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

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 1:46 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 March 2011 13:30, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Peter, this is too confusing, you seem to be debating a straw man. Let's try to keep it simple: am I to assume that you don't agree that ontological reduction entails

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread David Nyman
On 9 March 2011 14:17, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Phlogiston was eliminated, heat was reduced. There's a difference So on this basis you would claim that heat is *ontologically* (i.e. not merely epistemologically) distinguishable from molecular motion? On Mar 9, 1:46 pm, David Nyman

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 2:23 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 March 2011 14:17, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Phlogiston was eliminated, heat was reduced. There's a difference So on this basis you would claim that heat is *ontologically* (i.e. not merely epistemologically)

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread David Nyman
On 9 March 2011 14:39, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: So on this basis you would claim that heat is *ontologically* (i.e. not merely epistemologically) distinguishable from molecular motion? No. I would say it is ontologically the same as molecular motion, and molecular motion exists, so

Re: STEP THREE (was Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)

2011-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Mar 2011, at 14:31, Andrew Soltau wrote: On 08/03/11 18:41, Bruno Marchal wrote: 1) SWE what is SWE? Sorry. It is Schroedinger Wave Equation. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 3:28 AM, 1Z wrote: I can say yes to the doctor if my consciousness and qualia is related to a noumenal hinterland of the matter in my physical brain. That noumenal matter hinterland contradicts the idea that there is a level of description of myself where matter and physical

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 4:00 AM, Andrew Soltau wrote: Coupled with the inability to find any physiology corresponding to phenomenal consciousness, That's an odd thing to say. It is rather well known that phenomenal consciousness can be switched off by drugs. True, but when not switched off, when operating

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Mar 2011, at 12:28, 1Z wrote: On Mar 9, 7:24 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Mar 2011, at 15:54, 1Z wrote: On Mar 8, 1:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2011, at 21:48, David Nyman wrote: On 7 March 2011 15:56, Bruno Marchal

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 4:30 AM, Andrew Soltau wrote: Omnes for example, is that the collapse is purely epistemological. All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely predicts probabilities for this change. That's what I thought I was saying! No. Everett and Omnes are quite

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 4:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: Peter, your comments appear to illustrate a basic confusion between ontological and epistemological claims that makes me think that you haven't taken on board the fundamental distinction entailed in Bruno's original statement: Ontological reduction does

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 4:30 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Mar 2011, at 12:28, 1Z wrote: On Mar 9, 7:24 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Mar 2011, at 15:54, 1Z wrote: On Mar 8, 1:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2011, at 21:48, David

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 4:47 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 3/9/2011 4:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: Peter, your comments appear to illustrate a basic confusion between ontological and epistemological claims that makes me think that you haven't taken on board the fundamental

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 5:30 AM, 1Z wrote: Zombies are not a typical example of the problems of reduction, they are an instance of the reduction being bought too cheaply: the reductive materialist presents the off-the-peg conclusion that consciousness just is neural firing, without filling in the

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 3:25 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 March 2011 14:39, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: So on this basis you would claim that heat is *ontologically* (i.e. not merely epistemologically) distinguishable from molecular motion? No. I would say it is ontologically

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread David Nyman
On 9 March 2011 16:21, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: To me that is an open question.  Are philosophical zombies possible?  It seems unlikely, but when I consider specific ideas about consciousness, such as Julian Jaynes, then it seems more plausible that conscious-like behavior

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Mar 2011, at 17:49, 1Z wrote: On Mar 9, 4:30 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK. I guess you associate pain to the primitive matter. But that is even more incoherent with respect to the comp hypothesis. There is nothing mystical about the falsehood of comp. It is

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread David Nyman
On 9 March 2011 17:22, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: The point of eliminativism is that the eliminated thing doesn't exist at all. Just so. At a reduced ontological level, heat doesn't exist at all - it's just molecular motion, no more, no less, and any explanation invoking heat could in

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 5:56 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In that sense all right. Comp is the theory which accept as axiom that   my brain/body is Turing emulable at some level. But in that sense, comp is a theory of everything. Indeed, it even   makes elementary arithmetic a theory of

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 6:00 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 March 2011 17:22, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: The point of eliminativism is that the eliminated thing doesn't exist at all. Just so.  At a reduced ontological level, heat doesn't exist at all - It does, because it is

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 8:49 AM, 1Z wrote: If you have a theory of qualia using primitive matter, and coherent with comp, then you should be able to use it to extract a flaw in the UD Argument. Here's one: minds can be computed, but they only have real conscious if they run on the metal (at the

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 9:24 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 9 March 2011 16:21, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: To me that is an open question. Are philosophical zombies possible? It seems unlikely, but when I consider specific ideas about consciousness, such as Julian Jaynes, then it

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 5:15 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 3/9/2011 5:30 AM, 1Z wrote: Zombies are not a typical example of the problems of reduction, they are an instance of the reduction being bought too cheaply: the reductive materialist presents the off-the-peg conclusion that

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 11:46 AM, 1Z wrote: On Mar 9, 5:15 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 3/9/2011 5:30 AM, 1Z wrote: Zombies are not a typical example of the problems of reduction, they are an instance of the reduction being bought too cheaply: the reductive materialist

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread David Nyman
On 9 March 2011 19:09, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Fine, Peter, have it your way. We can't seem to progress beyond vocabulary difficulties to the substance. No doubt I have been less than persuasive, and thus have failed to convince you that there is indeed any substance. But since I have

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread David Nyman
On 9 March 2011 19:43, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Yes, I realize there are kinds of consciousness.  I thought the interesting idea in Jaynes was that perceptual consciousness, which I'm sure my dog has, was co-opted by evolution to become self-consciousness.  Specifically that

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 10:33 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 March 2011 19:09, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: Fine, Peter, have it your way.  We can't seem to progress beyond vocabulary difficulties to the substance. Unfortunately non-vocabulary differences have to be expressed in

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 7:28 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 3/9/2011 8:49 AM, 1Z wrote: If you have a theory of qualia using primitive matter, and coherent  with comp, then you should be able to use it to extract a flaw in the  UD Argument. Here's one: minds can be computed,  

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Mar 2011, at 19:10, 1Z wrote: On Mar 9, 5:56 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In that sense all right. Comp is the theory which accept as axiom that my brain/body is Turing emulable at some level. But in that sense, comp is a theory of everything. Indeed, it even makes

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/9/2011 4:15 PM, 1Z wrote: On Mar 9, 7:28 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: On 3/9/2011 8:49 AM, 1Z wrote: If you have a theory of qualia using primitive matter, and coherent with comp, then you should be able to use it to extract a flaw in the UD

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Mar 2011, at 20:09, 1Z wrote: On Mar 9, 6:00 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 9 March 2011 17:22, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: The point of eliminativism is that the eliminated thing doesn't exist at all. Just so. At a reduced ontological level, heat doesn't

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 06/03/11 18:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Andrew, On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:14, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi Bruno On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 20:10, Andrew Soltau wrote: I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 06/03/11 15:06, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 5:46 pm, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: The measurement problem is the question of why, or even if, collapse occurs. Certainly no coherent concept of how and why collapse occurs has been formulated in a manner which meets with general

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 06/03/11 15:19, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is simpler than something. If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a perfectly symmetrical

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 06/03/11 15:22, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people We don't have any evidence for that, Of course we do That was a rather blanket statement. But if we can

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 06/03/11 15:27, 1Z wrote: Clearly it is a universal property of the system in which we find ourselves, physical or arithmetical. One philosopher saying something doesn't make it clear Indeed. Clearly, in this case, it is a universal property of the system in which we findourselves,

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread 1Z
On Mar 8, 1:02 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 8 March 2011 00:11, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: It's rather well known that reductivism and eliminativism are not equivalent positions, for instance. snip And reductive identity theorists say mind is a bunch of micro

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread 1Z
On Mar 8, 11:32 am, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/11 15:06, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 5:46 pm, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.com  wrote: The measurement problem is the question of why, or even if, collapse occurs. Certainly no coherent concept of how and why collapse

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Mar 2011, at 21:48, David Nyman wrote: On 7 March 2011 15:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Reduction is not elimination snip Ontological reduction does not necessarily entail epistemological *elimination*, but it does entail ontological *elimination*. Bruno, this is

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread 1Z
On Mar 8, 11:47 am, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/03/11 15:22, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltauandrewsol...@gmail.com  wrote: On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote:  Collapse appears to instruments as well as people We don't have any evidence for that,

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread 1Z
On Mar 8, 1:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2011, at 21:48, David Nyman wrote: On 7 March 2011 15:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Reduction is not elimination snip Ontological reduction does not necessarily entail epistemological *elimination*,

Re: STEP THREE (was Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)

2011-03-08 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/8/2011 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We could start with lambda terms, or combinators instead. A computation (of phi_4(5) is just a sequence phi_4^0 (5) phi_4^1 (5) phi_4^2 (5) phi_4^3 (5) phi_4^4 (5) phi_4^5 (5) phi_4^6 (5) ... _4 is the program. 5 is the input. ^i is the ith

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread David Nyman
On 8 March 2011 12:16, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There are uncontroversial examples of successful reduction, eg the reduction of heat to molecular motion. In these cases the reduced phenomenon still exists. There is still such a thing as heat. People who sincerely think mind is

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread 1Z
On Mar 8, 9:15 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 8 March 2011 12:16, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: There are uncontroversial examples of successful reduction, eg the reduction of heat to molecular motion. In these cases the reduced phenomenon still exists. There is still

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread David Nyman
On 8 March 2011 23:42, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: How can they fail to be composite when they include interactions, structures and bindings? What ***are*** you on about? Say there is a pile of bricks that, under some externally-applied description, could be construed as a house; then that

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread 1Z
On Mar 9, 1:03 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 8 March 2011 23:42, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: How can they fail to be composite when they include interactions, structures and bindings? What ***are*** you on about? Say there is a pile of bricks that, under some

Re: STEP THREE (was Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper)

2011-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Mar 2011, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote: On 3/8/2011 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We could start with lambda terms, or combinators instead. A computation (of phi_4(5) is just a sequence phi_4^0 (5) phi_4^1 (5) phi_4^2 (5) phi_4^3 (5) phi_4^4 (5) phi_4^5 (5) phi_4^6 (5) ...

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Mar 2011, at 15:54, 1Z wrote: On Mar 8, 1:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Mar 2011, at 21:48, David Nyman wrote: On 7 March 2011 15:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Reduction is not elimination snip Ontological reduction does not necessarily

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Mar 2011, at 16:16, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 5:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect we all may. Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, ...

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread 1Z
On Mar 7, 9:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Mar 2011, at 16:16, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 5:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect we all may. Wong

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Mar 2011, at 15:10, 1Z wrote: On Mar 7, 9:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Mar 2011, at 16:16, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 5:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread 1Z
On Mar 7, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You haven;t explained why they should be dealing with consc. in the first place. Surely it is prima facie psychology. There is no human observation without consciousness. There can be no observations without sense organs, but it

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Mar 2011, at 16:12, 1Z wrote: On Mar 7, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You haven;t explained why they should be dealing with consc. in the first place. Surely it is prima facie psychology. There is no human observation without consciousness. There can be no

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Mar 2011, at 16:41, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Mar 2011, at 16:12, 1Z wrote: Reduction is not elimination Ontological reduction does not necessarily entail epistemological reduction, but it does entail ontological reduction. Please read: Ontological reduction does not

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread David Nyman
On 7 March 2011 15:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Reduction is not elimination snip Ontological reduction does not necessarily entail epistemological *elimination*, but it does entail ontological *elimination*. Bruno, this is what I was trying to say some time ago to Peter. Why

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread 1Z
On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 7 March 2011 15:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Reduction is not elimination snip Ontological reduction does not necessarily entail epistemological *elimination*, but it does entail ontological *elimination*.

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-07 Thread David Nyman
On 8 March 2011 00:11, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: It's rather well known that reductivism and eliminativism are not equivalent positions, for instance. snip And reductive identity theorists say mind is a bunch of micro physical goings-on, whereas their eliminativist opponents say mind

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread Andrew Soltau
Hi Bruno On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 20:10, Andrew Soltau wrote: I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is simpler than something. If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a perfectly

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread 1Z
On Mar 4, 5:46 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: The measurement problem is the question of why, or even if, collapse occurs. Certainly no coherent concept of how and why collapse occurs has been formulated in a manner which meets with general acceptance. It appears, as Davies

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread 1Z
On Mar 4, 5:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect we all may. Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be,   ... it is lacking in one important

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread 1Z
On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you mean by account for collapse.  At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres,

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread 1Z
On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is simpler than something. If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a perfectly symmetrical emergent property of the

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread 1Z
On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people We don't have any evidence for that, Of course we do indeed, if we take either the concept of Wigner's friend or Rovelli's RQM

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread 1Z
On Mar 6, 1:14 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bruno On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 20:10, Andrew Soltau wrote: I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is simpler than something. If we

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Andrew, On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:14, Andrew Soltau wrote: Hi Bruno On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2011, at 20:10, Andrew Soltau wrote: I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is simpler than something. If we take

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/6/2011 7:16 AM, 1Z wrote: It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the other theories are too vague, or refuted). Not at all. Objective collapse theories such as GRW have not been refuted, and spiritual interpretations, like von Neumann's are the vagues of the lot

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you mean by account for collapse. At least one

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-06 Thread John Mikes
*Brent,* *I agree with most of your statements (whatver value this may have...) Let me interject below.* *John M * On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote: On 3/6/2011 7:16 AM, 1Z wrote: It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the other

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Mar 2011, at 20:10, Andrew Soltau wrote: I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is simpler than something. If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a perfectly symmetrical emergent property of the Everything, and

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-04 Thread 1Z
On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect we all may. Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, ... it is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote: On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau andrewsol...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect we all may. Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, ... it is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of consciousness [which] could

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-04 Thread Brent Meeker
On 3/4/2011 6:20 AM, Andrew Soltau wrote: I suspect we all may. Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be, ... it is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most fundamental aspect of physics.

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Collapse appears to instruments as well as people - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you mean by account for collapse. At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and Omnes for example, is that the collapse is purely

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that everything is simpler than something. If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a perfectly symmetrical emergent property of the Everything, and you can't get much simpler than that. -- You

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote: Collapse appears to instruments as well as people We don't have any evidence for that, indeed, if we take either the concept of Wigner's friend or Rovelli's RQM seriously, this is not the case. - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree

Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was Another TOE short paper

2011-03-04 Thread Andrew Soltau
Although the moments, as defined by Everett's formulation, must have overlapping definitions, The new metaphor perfectly reflects one aspect of the situation. The experiential state, meaning the contents of the sensorium, is in all likelihood updated in exactly such a way. At the same time,