Physics, Metaphysics, and Realism

[Craig Weinberg]

I see all of our experiences, including dreams and delusions as being physical, but not necessarily “real”. To me, realism is a loose term describing the ‘middle of the road’ range of experiences in which bodies and minds are clearly separate. The contrasting ‘unreal’ ranges are the profoundly spiritual/psychedelic/psychotic experiences and the profoundly logical/mathematical/abstracted principles, both of which can be understood as signifying real or more-than-real referents.

Physical (< Unrealism of Logic < Realism of Bodies and Space ⊥ Realism of Experiences and Time > Unrealism of Psyche >)*

Metaphysical = Hypothetically outside of spacetime and matter.

Energy = Logical conceptualization of the perception and participation of material bodies in spacetime.

Information = Logical conceptualization of logic in spacetime.

Logic = Phenomenology turned in on itself - subjectivity that seeks to evacuate subjectivity of itself, leaving purely universal and involuntary truths as a residual product.

Psyche = Deep phenomenology. Unconstrained by logic, subjectivity is free to sense and dream itself into transpersonal and near-metaphysical ranges of experience.

* This is the Multisense Continuum, which is involuted like a Mobius strip, and can be shuffled and turned around:

< Unrealism of Logic
< Realism of Bodies and Space ⊥ Realism of Experiences and Time >
Unrealism of Psyche >

(⊥ = “perpendicular/orthogonal fold” relation of Pedestrian Realism, ie supermarket reality).

⊥ Realism of Experiences and Time >
Unrealism of Psyche > < Unrealism of Logic
< Realism of Bodies and Space ⊥

(> < = “evanescent dissolve” relation of Profound Unrealism, ie hypnogogic trance, epiphany, transcendence, enlightnenment)

The contemporary cosmology I would describe this way:

Information ↔ Laws of Physics > Energy ↔ Matter  ⊥  Space ↔ Time

The problems with this are embodied as problems with Idealism, Materialism, and Infocentrism, with each being unable to account for the prominence of the other without disqualifying it. Materialism makes information and subjectivity unreal, Idealism makes matter and spacetime unreal, Infocentricism makes matter and subjectivity unreal.

Each of these three views have a blind spot for their own bias, which becomes pathological when applied in a thoroughly literal way to the the universe. Living beings become indistinguishable from programmed robots and animated cadavers. The world becomes an illusion conjurable by codes. We paint ourselves into a corner so that we are forced to conceive of ourselves paradoxically as epiphenomenal voyeurs yet inevitably omnipotent masters of the universe and ourselves.

My approach, of course, is to weigh anchor with sense itself, as the primordial prerequisite of being and doing that is beneath and above all forms, materials, spaces, times, and subjective experiences. A neutral monism which projects itself within itself, always through juxtaposed experiences. Sense puts the 'in' into information and makes structures matter.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

I would classify your items as follows:

MENTAL (outside of spacetime) : All experiences, dreams, delusions, information, mathematics, logic, time,
space, feelings, thoughts, ideas, numbers, life itself, God, monads, mathematics, physical laws themselves,
theory of any type.

PHYSICAL (within spacetime): Anything with dimensions, anything you can measure with physical instruments
(even indirectly), weigh or see under a microscope or telescope, mass, energy, force, velocity, time, distance,
voltage, optical or sound intensity, wave amplitude, dna type, cancer type, living tissue, dead tissue,
flesh (brain).

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/22/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

=====================================================================
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-21, 10:58:11
Subject: Physics, Metaphysics, and Realism


I see all of our experiences, including dreams and delusions as being physical, but not necessarily ?eal?. To me, realism is a loose term describing the ?iddle of the road? range of experiences in which bodies and minds are clearly separate. The contrasting ?nreal? ranges are the profoundly spiritual/psychedelic/psychotic experiences and the profoundly logical/mathematical/abstracted principles, both of which can be understood as signifying real or more-than-real referents.
Physical (< Unrealism of Logic < Realism of Bodies and Space ? Realism of Experiences and Time > Unrealism of Psyche >)*

Metaphysical = Hypothetically outside of spacetime and matter.
Energy = Logical conceptualization of the perception and participation of material bodies in spacetime.
Information = Logical conceptualization of logic in spacetime.
Logic = Phenomenology turned in on itself - subjectivity that seeks to evacuate subjectivity of itself, leaving purely universal and involuntary truths as a residual product.
Psyche = Deep phenomenology. Unconstrained by logic, subjectivity is free to sense and dream itself into transpersonal and near-metaphysical ranges of experience.


* This is the Multisense Continuum, which is involuted like a Mobius strip, and can be shuffled and turned around:
< Unrealism of Logic

< Realism of Bodies and Space ? Realism of Experiences and Time >
Unrealism of Psyche >
(? = ?erpendicular/orthogonal fold? relation of Pedestrian Realism, ie supermarket reality).

? Realism of Experiences and Time >

Unrealism of Psyche > < Unrealism of Logic

< Realism of Bodies and Space ?
(> < = ?vanescent dissolve? relation of Profound Unrealism, ie hypnogogic trance, epiphany, transcendence, enlightnenment)

The contemporary cosmology I would describe this way:

Information Laws of Physics > Energy Matter ? Space Time

The problems with this are embodied as problems with Idealism, Materialism, and Infocentrism, with each being unable to account for the prominence of the other without disqualifying it. Materialism makes information and subjectivity unreal, Idealism makes matter and spacetime unreal, Infocentricism makes matter and subjectivity unreal.

Each of these three views have a blind spot for their own bias, which becomes pathological when applied in a thoroughly literal way to the the universe. Living beings become indistinguishable from programmed robots and animated cadavers. The world becomes an illusion conjurable by codes. We paint ourselves into a corner so that we are forced to conceive of ourselves paradoxically as epiphenomenal voyeurs yet inevitably omnipotent masters of the universe and ourselves.

My approach, of course, is to weigh anchor with sense itself, as the primordial prerequisite of being and doing that is beneath and above all forms, materials, spaces, times, and subjective experiences. A neutral monism which projects itself within itself, always through juxtaposed experiences. Sense puts the 'in' into information and makes structures matter.

--
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/-/jHjKd7AGTAYJ.
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 Craig Weinberg

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

9/22/2012

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

 

 

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

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-21, 10:58:11

Subject: Physics, Metaphysics, and Realism

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 22.09.2012 11:48 Roger Clough said the following:

> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> I would classify your items as follows:
>
> MENTAL (outside of spacetime) : All experiences, dreams, delusions,
> information, mathematics, logic, time, space, feelings, thoughts,
> ideas, numbers, life itself, God, monads, mathematics, physical laws
> themselves, theory of any type.
>
> PHYSICAL (within spacetime): Anything with dimensions, anything you
> can measure with physical instruments (even indirectly), weigh or see
> under a microscope or telescope, mass, energy, force, velocity, time,
> distance, voltage, optical or sound intensity, wave amplitude, dna
> type, cancer type, living tissue, dead tissue, flesh (brain).
>

Let us take a table, it seems to be a good example of a physical object
with dimensions that we could measure. Yet, it is unclear to me what
happens when I watch the table. Does I perceive it directly? Or
alternatively does I observe just my perceptions of the table?

In other worlds, do you assume direct or indirect realism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

Evgenii

[Roger Clough]

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi

Following Leibniz and Kant, what we see in the case of the table is a
"well-grounded phenomenon". That is, we do not see the table
itself, but as it appears to our senses. But the table is not
an illusion, it really is there, and we can place a pitchure of
milk on it with no problem and knock on its surface.

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/22/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

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

From: Evgenii Rudnyi
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-22, 07:29:27
Subject: Re: Physics, Metaphysics, and Realism

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 22.09.2012 14:09 Roger Clough said the following:

> Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
>
> Following Leibniz and Kant, what we see in the case of the table is
> a "well-grounded phenomenon". That is, we do not see the table
> itself, but as it appears to our senses. But the table is not an
> illusion, it really is there, and we can place a pitchure of milk on
> it with no problem and knock on its surface.

Now we should say where in the physical space this "well-grounded
phenomenon" is located. Otherwise we will have a problem with

PHYSICAL (within spacetime)

Evgenii

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 5:49:49 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

I would classify your items as follows:

MENTAL (outside of spacetime) :  All experiences, dreams, delusions, information, mathematics, logic, time,
space, feelings, thoughts, ideas, numbers, life itself, God, monads, mathematics, physical laws themselves,
theory of any type.

Huh? You are classifying "time, space" as "(outside of spacetime)".

If we recognize that experiences and dreams, feelings, thoughts, ideas, life itself, rely on significance which builds through story-like relations, and that they are not only cognitive but wordlessly emotional then I don't think that "MENTAL" is a meaningful category nor is it correct to consider these things separate from time. God, monads, physical laws, logic, mathematics, information, theories, etc are accessed through experiences in time, but represent space-like cognitive level qualia.
 

 
PHYSICAL (within spacetime): Anything with dimensions, anything you can measure with physical instruments
(even indirectly), weigh or see under a microscope or telescope, mass, energy, force, velocity, time, distance,
voltage, optical or sound intensity, wave amplitude, dna type, cancer type, living tissue, dead tissue,
flesh (brain).

I reject the assumption that the experiential aspects are not 'physical' since our feelings and thoughts are profoundly and directly affected by physical changes. It makes more sense to understand that the difference is in public persistence across space as bodies as opposed to private experience through time as significance.

Craig

 

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

Yes, time and space have to be together to be in spacetime.
This is just basic astrophysics.



Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/23/2012

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

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-22, 10:53:02

Subject: Re: Physics, Metaphysics, and Realism

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Qaxgx6MxkXwJ.

[Craig Weinberg]

Hi Roger,

My hypothesis is that the grouping of space and time together is a function of the exterior public realism view, not a primitive reality. The bigger picture is that while quantitatively seamless, time and space are (obviously) experientially perpendicular qualities. Astrophysics makes sense for astrophysical computations, but that view of the universe is one in which we can ever participate in personally. We can understand astrophysics, and predict and control matter, but we will always directly experience space and time as experiential formats which are as opposite as they could possibly be.

With multisense realism, we can group together any of the primitive categories of space, time, matter, energy, sense, motive, entropy, and significance and get sensible juxtapositions with the remaining categories. That's the way it works. If you say space is time, then you are saying matter is energy and experience doesn't exist. If you say entropy is significance then space and time become concretely real information, and matter and energy become the dumb vehicles. It's like a balloon wherever you mentally pinch the monad, the opposite side will seem to bulge out.

Craig

[Roger Clough]

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi


Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
So they are appearances, not the processes themselves.
But scientific experiments and measurements are not
made on the appearances, they are made on the
processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena
are said to be "well-grounded" in the processes themselves.

Kant spelled this out in great detail, calling "noumena" the
actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses,
and the appearances of those noumena to the senses
he called "phenomena".

the following content -----
From: Evgenii Rudnyi
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-22, 09:26:55

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 9:06:55 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi  


Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
So they are appearances, not the processes themselves.
But scientific experiments and measurements are not
made on the appearances, they are made on the
processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena
are said to be "well-grounded"  in the processes themselves.

Kant spelled this out in great detail,  calling "noumena" the
actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses,
and the appearances of those noumena to the senses
he called "phenomena".

Yes, but my hypothesis points to an entirely new picture of cosmos and psyche which explains the relation more clearly. Everything is both noumenal and phenomenal. Every noumenon of yours is a phenomenon from my perspective and vice versa. Multisense realism reinterprets those ideas of Locke and Kant which see the universe as a schema in which things can be more and less real, into one in which realism itself is a qualitative value exposed by agreements between multiple channels of sense experience. Dreams are real dreams, not fake realities. Not Primary and Secondary qualities, but a spectrum with both a private temporal range and a public spatial range. Not synthetic and analytic but algebraic-gestalt and topological-geometric. Not a priori and a posteriori but a spectrum of sense access ranging from direct to indirect, inferred, intuited, and undetected. You should understand that my intention is to throw out all philosophy and physics interpretations and start completely over from scratch. I reject all previous assumptions about the cosmos and consciousness and create entirely new ones that make more sense.

Craig

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 23.09.2012 15:05 Roger Clough said the following:
> Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
>
>

> Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses. So
> they are appearances, not the processes themselves. But scientific
> experiments and measurements are not made on the appearances, they
> are made on the processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena are
> said to be "well-grounded" in the processes themselves.
>
> Kant spelled this out in great detail, calling "noumena" the actual
> physical process which we cannot reach by our senses, and the
> appearances of those noumena to the senses he called "phenomena".
>

That's fine. My question then would be as follows. When you talk about
physical

>PHYSICAL (within spacetime): Anything with dimensions,

do you mean "noumena" or "phenomena"?

Evgenii

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
>
>
> Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
> So they are appearances, not the processes themselves.
> But scientific experiments and measurements are not
> made on the appearances, they are made on the
> processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena
> are said to be "well-grounded" in the processes themselves.
>
> Kant spelled this out in great detail, calling "noumena" the
> actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses,

And which does not exist, at least not in the sense that they cause
our senses.
This is the most counter-intuitive aspect of comp, as the physical
process are projection on the conditions making the dream coherent.

What you describe here has to be locally, and statistically correct,
but this is in need of verification, once we bet on comp.

Bruno

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

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:28:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
>
>
> Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
> So they are appearances, not the processes themselves.
> But scientific experiments and measurements are not
> made on the appearances, they are made on the
> processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena
> are said to be "well-grounded"  in the processes themselves.
>
> Kant spelled this out in great detail,  calling "noumena" the
> actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses,


And which does not exist, at least not in the sense that they cause  
our senses.
This is the most counter-intuitive aspect of comp, as the physical  
process are projection on the conditions making the dream coherent.

Why does comp want coherent dreams?

Craig
 

[Bruno Marchal]

Coherent dreams are reasonable data. Comp has to justify their
existence (easy, with comp), and their relative measure (hard).

Bruno


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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

In my suggested definitions,

To exist = to physically be in spacetime (at location r at time t).

To inhere = to be otherwise (to be mental, outside of spacetime,
not at (r,t)).

Anything physical must be at a location r at time t.
It is acting at f(r,t).

Without time, space is just a concept, so I say that it inheres rather
than exists, same as time without space. They cannot exist separately.

Idealism represents all physical objects as ideas. It considers
what exists as what inheres.

Physicalism denies the existence of inherent objects.

Physical Realism -- that something physically exists without an observer.

Metaphysical Realism = that something inheres without a thinker.





Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/24/2012

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


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-23, 08:57:53
Subject: Re: Re: Physics, Metaphysics, and Realism

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/l6iLCTPR-tgJ.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi

Phenomenal means physical objects as perceived by the senses.
Noumenal means the physical processes or objects themselves.



Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/24/2012

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


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Evgenii Rudnyi
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-23, 11:03:39

Subject: Re: Physics, Metaphysics, and Realism

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 Sep 2012, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:28:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> > Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
> >
> >
> > Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
> > So they are appearances, not the processes themselves.
> > But scientific experiments and measurements are not
> > made on the appearances, they are made on the
> > processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena
> > are said to be "well-grounded"  in the processes themselves.
> >
> > Kant spelled this out in great detail,  calling "noumena" the
> > actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses,
>
>
> And which does not exist, at least not in the sense that they cause
> our senses.
> This is the most counter-intuitive aspect of comp, as the physical
> process are projection on the conditions making the dream coherent.
>
> Why does comp want coherent dreams?

Coherent dreams are reasonable data.

Why does comp want reasonable data?
 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Sep 2012, at 18:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 Sep 2012, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:28:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> > Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
> >
> >
> > Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
> > So they are appearances, not the processes themselves.
> > But scientific experiments and measurements are not
> > made on the appearances, they are made on the
> > processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena
> > are said to be "well-grounded"  in the processes themselves.
> >
> > Kant spelled this out in great detail,  calling "noumena" the
> > actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses,
>
>
> And which does not exist, at least not in the sense that they cause
> our senses.
> This is the most counter-intuitive aspect of comp, as the physical
> process are projection on the conditions making the dream coherent.
>
> Why does comp want coherent dreams?

Coherent dreams are reasonable data.

Why does comp want reasonable data?

Comp does not want them. We have them. They are what *we* want to explain. Comp is just the working hypothesis.

Bruno

 

Comp has to justify their  
existence (easy, with comp),  and their relative measure (hard).

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/-/N8X4rKc0vyYJ.

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 Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:02:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 24 Sep 2012, at 18:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 Sep 2012, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:28:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> > Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
> >
> >
> > Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
> > So they are appearances, not the processes themselves.
> > But scientific experiments and measurements are not
> > made on the appearances, they are made on the
> > processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena
> > are said to be "well-grounded"  in the processes themselves.
> >
> > Kant spelled this out in great detail,  calling "noumena" the
> > actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses,
>
>
> And which does not exist, at least not in the sense that they cause
> our senses.
> This is the most counter-intuitive aspect of comp, as the physical
> process are projection on the conditions making the dream coherent.
>
> Why does comp want coherent dreams?

Coherent dreams are reasonable data.

Why does comp want reasonable data?

Comp does not want them. We have them. They are what *we* want to explain. Comp is just the working hypothesis.

It's circular though. Why do we have them?

Comp is your working hypothesis, not mine :)

Craig

[Bruno Marchal]

To be short, because we accept the arithmetical truth.

Comp is your working hypothesis, not mine :)

This make coherent your belief in matter. But you are back at the start of the mind body problem, as you assume everything we want to explain (mind, body, and their relation).

Bruno

Craig

Bruno

 

Comp has to justify their  
existence (easy, with comp),  and their relative measure (hard).

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/-/N8X4rKc0vyYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/T7XDWDR3_HcJ.

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]

What is it that is doing the accepting, and what would arithmetical truth be without it?
 

Comp is your working hypothesis, not mine :)

This make coherent your belief in matter. But you are back at the start of the mind body problem, as you assume everything we want to explain (mind, body, and their relation).

I don't believe in matter so much as I believe in material appearances as a way to make sense of the impersonal. I assume that sense is the capacity to experience and to meta-juxtapose experiences within each other.  Out of this you get sub-personal (materialist), super-personal (idealist), and impersonal (functionalist) projections through which we can think that we could explain the absence of personal irreducibility.

If instead, we turn this inside out, and see personal level phenomenology as the primordial principle, then the other projections make perfect sense as organizational representations. The authentic presentation is local and proprietary, not disembodied and automatic.

Craig

[Bruno Marchal]

"We" are doing the accepting. And with comp, "we" are supported by the
computations "living" in arithmetical truth.
Arithmetical truth without it cannot exists, like it cannot exist with
the number 666 being absent.
Comp + arithmetical truth implies our existence, and our relative
measure (physical laws).

>
>
>>
>> Comp is your working hypothesis, not mine :)
>
> This make coherent your belief in matter. But you are back at the
> start of the mind body problem, as you assume everything we want to
> explain (mind, body, and their relation).
>
> I don't believe in matter so much as I believe in material
> appearances as a way to make sense of the impersonal. I assume that
> sense is the capacity to experience and to meta-juxtapose
> experiences within each other. Out of this you get sub-personal
> (materialist), super-personal (idealist), and impersonal
> (functionalist) projections through which we can think that we could
> explain the absence of personal irreducibility.
>
> If instead, we turn this inside out, and see personal level
> phenomenology as the primordial principle, then the other
> projections make perfect sense as organizational representations.
> The authentic presentation is local and proprietary, not disembodied
> and automatic.

Hmm...

Bruno



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

[Craig Weinberg]

With drugs or hypnosis, you could experience arithmetical truth without 666 being present. I think it would just seem like this:

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x-x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm

and you would accept it, just as in a dream you would accept that you are driving a cow to work on this day. Logic supervenes on awareness. If I put a hole between 665 and 667 in your awareness, you will fill it in without any particular distress. We have always been at war with Eastasia. 667 has always come after 665, just as 0 comes before 1...it's a logical convention, a cognitive sense-making experience.

 

Comp + arithmetical truth implies our existence, and our relative  
measure (physical laws).

If we didn't exist, why would Comp + arithmetical truth create us? What is it that is missing from it and how could such a missing thing be generated?

Craig