MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Roger Clough]

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

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Roger,

How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions?

--
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.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes


I don't pretend to be a physicist, but I do know that
quantum waves are probability functions. There are
the radius and time t in the Schroedinger equation,
so there must be some correpondence to the physical world,
but nothing physical is waving.

So suppose we have a physical box. The probability
waves have to conform to the dimensions of the box, but
they are ghost-like waves of probability.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/12/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-12, 07:01:01
Subject: 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?

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Roger,

Sure, neither do I.

But if you preform the double slit experience you will see physical wave-like patters of interference. If it quacks like a duck...

I'm not a materialist and I have no problem with the idea of the physical world being a dream. But I also believe that all experiences are equally real, including dreams. Including the literal dreams we have when we sleep. So I believe in the physical world without being a materialist.

[Richard Ruquist]

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

[Craig Weinberg]

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 Ruquist]

Craig,
You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie.
However, yo might very well be right.
Richard

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/XOYz42fEIc8J.

[Bruno Marchal]

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], [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
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes

The Schrodinger wave equation (SWE) uses a "quantum wave function" psi(r,t), which is the
mathematical probability that a quantum particle will be at certain location r at time t.

Solution of the Schrodinger equation for the two slit experiment will
give you an interference pattern at the photographic plate even though
the quantum wave function psi is just a mathematical expression.

Psi only converts to a particle when psi arrives at the photographic plate.

So psi is not physical, it is a mathematical solution to the particular SWE.
The only physical part of the experiment is at the end when the wave hits the photographic
plate.



[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/13/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-12, 09:45:51
Subject: Re: Quntum waves are probability (mathemaqtical) waves,not physical waves

Hi Roger,


Sure, neither do I.
But if you preform the double slit experience you will see physical wave-like patters of interference. If it quacks like a duck...
I'm not a materialist and I have no problem with the idea of the physical world being a dream. But I also believe that all experiences are equally real, including dreams. Including the literal dreams we have when we sleep. So I believe in the physical world without being a materialist.

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Telmo Menezes


I don't pretend to be a physicist, but I do know that

quantum waves are probability functions. ?here are

the radius and time t in the Schroedinger equation,
so there must be some correpondence to the physical world,
but nothing physical is waving.

So suppose we have a physical box. ?he probability

waves have to conform to the dimensions of the box, but
they are ghost-like waves of probability.



[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/12/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-12, 07:01:01
Subject: 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 ?rote:

[Telmo Menezes]

:)

Ok.

[Roger Clough]

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], [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

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> 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

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com> 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

[Craig Weinberg]

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
 

[Craig Weinberg]

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?
 

[Bruno Marchal]

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Jan 2013, at 15:45, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi Roger,

Sure, neither do I.

But if you preform the double slit experience you will see physical wave-like patters of interference. If it quacks like a duck...

I'm not a materialist and I have no problem with the idea of the physical world being a dream. But I also believe that all experiences are equally real, including dreams. Including the literal dreams we have when we sleep. So I believe in the physical world without being a materialist.

And that follows from the comp (or weakened) assumption. But then the physical can be redefined, as many things remains physical, even if not fundamentally so. In that case the quantum waves are physical, as they have observable effects. They are as much physical than particles and planets. 

I am not sure that Roger is open to conceive a dream form of "idealism" (itself relying only on arithmetic).

Also, with comp, you can always recover a form of local physicalism, by lowering the substitution level. Comp entails (I think) that we can lower down the substitution level ad infinitum, so ~ comp is guarantied to remain consistent for ever.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

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

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@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/

[Craig Weinberg]

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
 

[Richard Ruquist]

> 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

>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

Good question. It's a difficult question to answer, but here's

my best answer at present. 

 

Monads or substances are the fundamental entites of Leibniz's universe.

They are all substances of one part.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance

http://www.ditext.com/russell/leib1.html#3


"Every proposition has a subject and a predicate.
A subject may have predicates which are qualities existing at various times. (Such a subject is called a substance.) "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The phrase " predicates which are qualities existing at various times"

gets me off the hook with regard to wavicles and numbers. Both quanta and

numbers are substances of one part and so are monads. And all monads, whatever they be,
must have a fixed identity.

 

Subject                predicate(s)

(of fixed identity)

 

ordinary matter    always both 1. physcal matter     2. mental matter

wavicle               either      1. physical matter    or  2. mental (quantum) matter

numbers              always     2. mental matter.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/14/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-13, 11:57:48

Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

Why not ? There are gravitational waves.
But earthquakes usually initiate waves
by the sudden release of potential energy.

[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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RBR-D-LjaO8J.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

 

OK--- in the mind.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@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

--
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-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard Ruquist]

I say discrete digital fermionic particles of any kind are substances.
whereas continuous analog quantum bosonic loops, and waves and fields
are not. Richard

[Bruno Marchal]

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

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@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/

[Craig Weinberg]

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

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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 <whats...@gmail.com>
>> 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.

> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:11:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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

[Roger Clough]

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], [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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0CJGbfg90NMJ.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

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

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 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/

[Bruno Marchal]

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

>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@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/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Jan 2013, at 12:31, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

Good question. It's a difficult question to answer, but here's

my best answer at present. 

 

Monads or substances are the fundamental entites of Leibniz's universe.

They are all substances of one part.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's Bertrand Russell's view of Leibniz's definition of substance

http://www.ditext.com/russell/leib1.html#3


"Every proposition has a subject and a predicate.
A subject may have predicates which are qualities existing at various times. (Such a subject is called a substance.) "

Sorry but I don't know what time is. Please read Plotinus, and forget everything written after, because it is just footnotes on Aristotle, and this can't work with my favorite working hypothesis. Of course you can also assume that comp is false, and develop a non-comp theory, but that is more difficult, and for this I will ask you much more precision. 

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> I say discrete digital fermionic particles of any kind are substances.
> whereas continuous analog quantum bosonic loops, and waves and fields
> are not. Richard

Hmm... perhaps. It looks a bit like magic to me, though.

Bruno

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@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 post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@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/

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

That is only true in heaven, where time does not exist.

Nothing could exist (on earth) if there were no time
because things (physical or nonphysical) exist in time.
That is what "to exist" means. To be there, dasein.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 10:07:27
Subject: Re: Are numbers substances ? Are quanta substances ?

[Roger Clough]

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], [rcl...@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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
> 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/

[Bruno Marchal]

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

> 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 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 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/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:03, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>

> That is only true in heaven, where time does not exist.
>
> Nothing could exist (on earth) if there were no time
> because things (physical or nonphysical) exist in time.

I don't grasp that the non physical exist in time.

> That is what "to exist" means. To be there, dasein.

That's epistemological existence.

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 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 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/

[Bruno Marchal]

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
>

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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/
>
>
>

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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?

[Roger Clough]

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], [rcl...@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

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a slide show.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@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:
>

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

1) My awareness is nonphysical (because internal) yet exists in time.

 

2) I suppose you're right about epistemological existence,

as long as nobody is thinking about those states.

 

I suppose that 1p would apply there, if we consider

thinking as internal perception of an idea.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 10:57:41

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen P. King]

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
>>> <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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/

[Bruno Marchal]

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 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 post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

1) My awareness is nonphysical (because internal) yet exists in time.

I agree that the most common conscious state (awareness) exists in relation with subjective time, but subjective time itself does not exist in physical time. Of course I assume comp throughout, I will not repeat this.

 

2) I suppose you're right about epistemological existence,

as long as nobody is thinking about those states.

 

I suppose that 1p would apply there, if we consider

thinking as internal perception of an idea.

"Thinking" is a fuzzy term. It can be associated with the whole handling of the information (deduction, inductive inference, imagination, and you might add or not perception, as long as you say so and remain coherent).

Bruno

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/

[Richard Ruquist]

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 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 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
>>>> 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

[Roger Clough]

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], [rcl...@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

> 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 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[Craig Weinberg]

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
 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Jan 2013, at 14:49, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> 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 the choice axiom), but also in general relativity (the rotating universe, solutions to Einstein's equation) which he did just to piss of Einstein when arguing about the notion of time, I think. 

I have developed the main part of the UDA before knowing Gödel's existence, and I was about deciding to study biology when I found the little book by Nagel and Newman on "Gödel's proof", which changed my mind, so that I decided to study math instead. 

I was obsessed with one question, coming from my fondness toward amoeba and protozoans. "Does an amoeba duplicate itself, or are amoeba just duplicated *by* the universe?". What was the part of the self of the amoeba when biologist said that it duplicate itself?

I was lucky being born at the time when people like Watson and Crick unravelled the DNA structure, and people like Jacob and Monod discovered molecular genetic regulations, which convinced me that there was indeed a self, coded in the DNA, and implemented in the laws of chemistry. 

But the role of chemistry was disturbing, and even more so when I tried to figure out what could be an atom. 

Then by reading Nagel and Newman's book on Gödel's proof, I get a simple model of the self, which did not rely on atoms and chemistry at all. Indeed, it is in Gödel's work that I found the (Cantorian) Dx = "xx" trick to build self/referential machine/programs/numbers.

The main point will be made utterly clear, with Church thesis, by Stephen C. Kleene, whose book "Introduction to Metamathematics" will be my bible for years. With the work of Emil Post, Kleene is the founder of recursion theory, that is the study of the degree of non-computability or unsolvability. That will be my specialization in math. I intended to do a career in recursion theory, and to come back to foundational question at my retirement, but luckily or not, I did not get the funding to do recursion theory, and so I continue the foundational research as an hobby. I will use Gödel's work (and his many successor's work) as a tool to translate UDA in arithmetic (this will take about 20 years). Gödel's work will be polished through many other works, like Rosser, Löb, and eventually the modal completeness theorem of Solovay (the discovery of G and G*, which axiomatize the whole consequence of incompleteness, at some level).

So the relation with Gödel is that I am using his work to handle the translation of the comp mind-body problem in arithmetic (and/or in arithmetical terms). It is the AUDA part, and that will be defended (successfully!) as a Phd thesis in theoretical computer science.

Gödel did not address specifically the mind-body problem. In some text he seems open to comp, like when saying that mind can be emulated by self-developing machine, but he was also open to non comp, like when arguing that we might someday have evidence that evolution has been too quick to be purely mechanical. (an argument which fails in Everett QM, note).

Also, Gödel took time to swallow Church thesis (which in my opinion means that he is just very serious, as that thesis is close to be unbelievable).

Thanks to Everett, I will eventually "understand" quantum mechanics, if I may say. Bizarre as it could seem, I found the many dreams in arithmetic well before realizing that the collapse of the quantum wave was just a trick to avoid the many-worlds. Up to my reading of Everett, I was still unsure about what makes an amoeba self-duplicating. After reading Everett I realize that QM, and thus chemistry, was the best ally of mechanism, and indeed QM-Everett can be seen as a confirmation of the most startling consequences of digital mechanism (indeterminacy, local apparent non locality, non cloning, many-worlds, etc.). 

But the price of using comp is that the quantum wave must be eventually justified entirely in term of internal probabilities made by numbers relatively to the universal numbers "running" them.  A big price, but even without the extraction, it does provide a model explaining where the laws of physics might come from (at least).

Well, I don't want to be too long, but I hope you get a bit of the idea. Gödel's work plays no role in UDA, but it plays the key role in AUDA.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

 

Ultimately the PEH.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@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

--
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-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ?

[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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZCL6CneRTbQJ.

[Bruno Marchal]

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/

[Craig Weinberg]

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]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

 

OK, I was just thinking in my old engineering frame of mind.

 

 

[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, 11:59:05

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should beTwoAspects Theory

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FWid9J9HABwJ.