--
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.
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.
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.
Craig,
You sound like the ultimate flower girl, all touchy and feelie.
However, yo might very well be right.
Richard
Hi Roger,How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions?
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 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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-13, 11:57:48
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-13, 08:45:18Subject: 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.
Hi Craig Weinberg
Why not ? There are gravitational waves.
But earthquakes usually initiate waves
by the sudden release of potential energy.
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.
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).
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.
Hi Bruno MarchalGood question. It's a difficult question to answer, but here'smy 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.) "
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: 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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: 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.
Hi Bruno Marchal
I seem to have been using words sloppily. You can't get away with thatwith 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 theoutput 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.
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 considerthinking as internal perception of an idea.
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.
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.
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 secondhas 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 asolution/explanation of the mind-body riddle.
I am too old to learn modal logic.
So I will accept the results of arithmetics
in a systems analysis that includes as modules:
1. the CTM for a compactified-substance subspace that derives the MWI
Quantum Mind as well as
2. the physical world: Matter and Energy (that was created along with
Space and the Compact Manifold CM Subspace). According to string
theory the particles of fermionic matter are connected to membranes of
the Quantum Mind by strings, a theory verified by LHC measurements of
the viscosity of BEC quark/gluon plasma
Pratt and BEC duality connect the Physical to the Mind as well as strings.
and then we can compare with nature.which I claim is best represented by quantum string theoryI am open to that hypothesis, but to get both the qualia and the quanta, wemust 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 tonow, 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 = ArithmeticalUDA, it is the translation of the argument in arithmetic (or in any TuringUniversal machine's language), and the answer of the machine (but also toits "guardian angel": the machine is mute on this, unless she too assumecomp, and some amount of self-consistency (but not much so as to avoid theconsequence 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?
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 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.
Hi Craig Weinberg
Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ?
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-17, 11:59:05Subject: 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.