If our minds are only computational, then we can't even imagine a "material universe"!
Neil B.
modeled in terms of computational intelligence, etc. Computations work
with numbers in effect, and can't represent anything that isn't some
sort of mathematical structure. Well, as modal realists have explained:
the very idea of substantial existence ("real stuff" being distinct from
Platonic forms) cannot be coherently defined and explained in strictly
logical terms. We not only can't explain why some possible worlds, have
a special trait called "existing" and others don't, we can't even
explain what the distinction consists of to start with. Hence thinkers
like David Lewis said all such worlds "exist" with equal standing. This
leads to the IMHO hilarious irony for "materialist thinkers" like Dan
Dennett: if our minds are only computational, then we can't even
conceive a "material universe"!
Note that the thinking done in a model simulation is just like that in a
"real world" - if both are defined in AI terms. Hence, the AI entity
can't even frame the thought, "I am a material being and not just part
of a program simulation or Platonic structure of math (as in MUH.) It is
ironic, that those who believe in AI concepts of human thought *have to
be modal realists* to be honest and can't even be genuine
"materialists." They implicitly don't believe in a way to conceive of
substantial worlds being distinct from the mathematical process itself
(although most don't realize it and continue to play along.) Hence, all
such worlds exist and there is no point in "physics" or materialism per
se. Even all cartoons would be real worlds. Note that we have Bayesian
expectation problems about own in such a case: we'd be more likely to be
in a world that was just coherent enough to create us, but no better
(and not inclined to stay that way - since changes are of course
"describable" features of a concept world too!)
Neither can we logically define "real flowing time" as a special way for
reality to be, distinct from simply there being a configuration of
points and lines (world-lines) in a "space" of four-dimensions. Yes, we
*represent* time events in math, but there is no definition of it as a
distinct entity, no mathematical way to point to the "t" in dx/dt and
say, "That is some special, qualitatively different trait and not in
kind like the "x". Yet somehow our minds grasp or profess these
distinctions, as they do the idea of "consciousness" being special. I
don't think that's a coincidence. And if a CI/AI proponent is going to
gripe that our minds are computational and that "consciousness" can't be
logically defined or explained, then neither can "real flowing time" or
even the idea that for example our thoughts happen in "real material
brains" and not just some Platonic math structure (similar to a point
made by Jaron Lanier.) I call this dilemma "the brain as a fact" (as
mere computations distinct from "incarnation") in comparison to the old
conundrum, how does any of us know he or she isn't really a brain in a
vat being fed simulations Matrix-style.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well of course there's not. Since mathematicians invented
the notation "dx/dt" to represet Calculus to begin with, not
physical events.
So, that's also part of the reason the non brain dead 21st Century
people work on Electronic Books,
Desktop Top Publishing, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Light Sticks,
GPS, Multiplexed Fiber Optics, Holograms,
Distributed Processing Software, Cell Phones, USB, HDTV, On-Line
Publishing, and Drones.
Rather than with idiot AI mathematicians and Wall Street
Derivatives Traders anyway
Neil B.
"Neil B." <neil_...@caloricmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7KdnU1aLLA3qQDX...@posted.widowmaker...
Note, the idea of a "real universe" that isn't just a mathematical
construct is like the didactic notion in philosophy of mind that there's
a difference between being "really conscious" versus being an
unconscious "zombie" that acts just like people. I call a conceptual
possible universe that isn't "incarnated" like ours is felt to be, a
"mombie" (for modal-realism zombie.) If, like Dan Dennett, you think
that the idea of zombies is incoherent because it isn't definable, then
to be consistent you have to be a modal realist and accept that the
distinction between "real" and mombie universes isn't coherent either.
In similar vein, we could make a distinction between universes in which
"time really flows" versus "block worlds" in which the 4-D world-line
structure is just taken as a given, and the sense of a moving present is
an illusion etc. Time-zombies: tombies?
Neil B.
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1ba17bd3-b401-4c8e...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 10:50 am, "Neil B." <neil_del...@caloricmail.com> wrote:
>> Neither can we logically define "real flowing time" as a special way
>> for reality to be, distinct from simply there being a configuration
>> of
>> points and lines (world-lines) in a "space" of four-dimensions. Yes,
>> we
>> *represent* time events in math, but there is no definition of it as
>> a
>> distinct entity, no mathematical way to point to the "t" in dx/dt and
>> say, "That is some special, qualitatively different trait and not in
>> kind like the "x".
> Well of course there's not. Since mathematicians invented
> the notation "dx/dt" to represet Calculus to begin with, not
> physical events.
...
Right, good point. Math "itself" is represented by calculus and even
geometry: how variables change w.r.t. each other, how distributions of
points defined through coordinates relate to each other etc. There is
nothing in math that can even define "time" as a qualitatively different
dimension, or "material existence" as a special non-predicate property
distinct from the sort of "existence" that numbers, solutions to
equations, or ideal circles etc. have. We apply it to study nature
because of the structural "isomorphism" between math and nature. But we
can't define what the latter "is" in terms of math alone! (See my extra
comment about mombies and tombies.)
Surfer
<neil_...@caloricmail.com> wrote:
>
>".... if our minds are only computational, then we can't even
>conceive a "material universe"!
>
Good point. Perhaps this is better.
Process Physics: Self-Referential Information and Experiential
Reality
http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Cahill-FinalPaper.pdf
<Start extract>
This model of reality, which is profoundly different from the current
model, is based on deep issues involving the notion that reality is
self-referential �information�. This leads us to the notion that
reality is essentially mind-like, and that from this arises a new
account of space and the quantum, as well as new notions
about the possible nature of consciousness. Most importantly all the
experiments that the physicists have carried out over the last century
and more superbly support this new theory. It will be shown
that the Process Philosophers were correct all along; and that the
mainstream physicists, for reasons that are now easy to understand,
got it very wrong, and misled themselves even more so than they
misled others.
<End extract>
Neil B.
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:eaiq95ti73ef5mo77...@4ax.com...
Thanks. I will look at this, but meanwhile it's hard to see how they
would distinguish which "possible worlds" become real in any sense and
which don't. There is a hard problem of reality, not just a hard problem
of
consciousness!
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
Or you could it phrase it as:
The imbecile God was discovered for the stooges who believe there
is
a universal oneness between Laser Beams and Galaxies, and there
is a connection between East Bound trains and Rubber plants.
>
> Yet somehow our minds grasp or profess these
>
>
>
> > distinctions, as they do the idea of "consciousness" being special. I
> > don't think that's a coincidence. And if a CI/AI proponent is going to
> > gripe that our minds are computational and that "consciousness" can't be
> > logically defined or explained, then neither can "real flowing time" or
> > even the idea that for example our thoughts happen in "real material
> > brains" and not just some Platonic math structure (similar to a point
> > made by Jaron Lanier.) I call this dilemma "the brain as a fact" (as
> > mere computations distinct from "incarnation") in comparison to the old
> > conundrum, how does any of us know he or she isn't really a brain in a
> > vat being fed simulations Matrix-style.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Y.Porat
wrote:
-------------------------------
yes
you mentioned the problem of 'Modern physics'
and that is waht i try to explain along
many years
physics is first of all
physics thinking!!
so mathematics
cannot be the *leader ** of it!!!
mathematics can be only a supplementary tool
that comes only after the the physics understanding !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Neil B.
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80131db1-7578-49c8...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 5:15 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
> On Sep 1, 10:50 am, "Neil B." <neil_del...@caloricmail.com> wrote:
>
Good points. The question is not only "why is there something rather
than nothing" and "why is it like that and not otherwise", but more
fundamentally: *what* is something rather than nothing (more precisely,
rather than a mathematical description only.)
PopeOfPigeonPark
>
> >".... if our minds are only computational, then we can't even
> >conceive a "material universe"!
>
> Good point. Perhaps this is better.
>
> Process Physics: Self-Referential Information and Experiential
>
> <Start extract>
>
> This model of reality, which is profoundly different from the current
> model, is based on deep issues involving the notion that reality is
> self-referential ‘information’. This leads us to the notion that
> reality is essentially mind-like, and that from this arises a new
> account of space and the quantum, as well as new notions
> about the possible nature of consciousness. Most importantly all the
> experiments that the physicists have carried out over the last century
> and more superbly support this new theory. It will be shown
> that the Process Philosophers were correct all along; and that the
> mainstream physicists, for reasons that are now easy to understand,
> got it very wrong, and misled themselves even more so than they
> misled others.
>
> <End extract>
Its not really a new theory. John Wheeler first formulated such an
idea in his Participatory Anthropic Principle, PAP. More recently the
concept has been revisited in various formats, as self referential, or
self-explanatory theories.
Ever since copernican reasoning became the norm scientists have been
loathe to give a more central role to biology in the grand scheme of
the universe. Hence we have over 10 different interpretations
regarding the meaning of qm! Think about it, its a crazy state of
affairs. Here is a theory we call the most accurate ever discovered/
formulated by humans and there are a multitude of ways to interpret
the exact same experimental results.
In my view ,that fact alone; that qm can legitimately mean all those
different things surely indicates that reality is in fact much more
subjective than classical science would care to admit.
There's more evidence at hand. Chaos theory. On the macroscopic level
we have the same sort of ultimate level of unpredictability, as is
seen in qm (heisenberg) at the sub-atomic. So in both case, the large
and the very small, nature appears to be saying the same thing; that
our attempts to define our physcial reality to an infinite degree of
accuracy is just not possible.
What if Darwin was even more of a genius than we already give him
credit for? What if there exists a symbiotic relationship between
biology and the inanimate universe? Could biology not only evolve, but
could the physcial universe (reality) evolve in paralell with it? As
biology evolves new sensory organs emerge over time which are able to
define the physical universe in more and more detail. So did the
universe really look like it does today when biology was not present
with the ability to see "colour"? Obviously this is all impossible to
falsify one way or the other, but in my opinion QM taken at face
value; supports this version of events of a universe which evolved in
tandem symbiotically with biological systems.
That represents a hardcore sort of self-referential universe, very
much along the lines of PAP, where one can imagine that the only
universe which becomes a "reality" is the one in which biology can
emerge. Hence it resolves all the anthropic coincidences which just
somehow (a big fluke according to the mainstream) has made our
universe so perfect for life to emerge.
I much prefer this theory to the multiverse theories which need an
infinite amount of universes in order to legitimise ours.
PopeOfPigeonPark
>
> - Show quoted text -
A caveat to add:
I'm not for one moment saying physical "reality" does not exist. But
it doesnt matter really because "reality" is what we all agree it is.
QM seems to be a good way to regulate that "reality", and if one
considers the superluminal capabiltities witnessed through non-local
effects such as entanglement, what better method could there be for
nature to "force" consistency within the group "reality" - our
universe.