Books/papers about mechanisms for ESPs ?
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Cosmin Visan
Mar 20, 2018, 7:55:08 PM3/20/18
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Serge Patlavskiy
Mar 21, 2018, 4:19:05 AM3/21/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Cosmin Visan on March 21, 2018 wrote:
>Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms
> for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly
>understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any
>such kind of attempt.
.
[S.P.] I would place the horse before the cart: the phenomenon of ESP (extra sensory perception) cannot be properly understood without accounting for the mechanisms of consciousness.
.
[Cosmin Visan] wrote:
> There are lots of theories for consciousness out there...
.
[S.P.] How many "theories of consciousness" do you know? Can you name, at least, one? By "theory of consciousness" I mean the explanatory framework able to show how the physical sensory signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. For the last 20+ years I am in search for other theorist's version of the theory of consciousness to compare our results, but still in vain.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "'Cosmin Visan' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:54 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Books/papers about mechanisms for ESPs ?
--
Kushal Shah
Mar 21, 2018, 4:33:41 AM3/21/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:43 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
-Cosmin Visan on March 21, 2018 wrote:>Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms> for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly>understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any>such kind of attempt..[S.P.] I would place the horse before the cart: the phenomenon of ESP (extra sensory perception) cannot be properly understood without accounting for the mechanisms of consciousness.
Here I think its important to ask what is it that we mean by the phrase "understanding". What do we actually understand about anything? When we say that we understand Newton's laws, what do we actually mean? And do we really understand quantum mechanics? In most cases, "understanding" only means two things : familiarity and mathematical framework. Familiarity with these phenomenon and with consciousness can only be gained through certain spiritual practices well described in Patanjali Yoga Sutras and other such texts. As for mathematical framework, it seems nowhere in sight and will perhaps be this way forever.
.[Cosmin Visan] wrote:> There are lots of theories for consciousness out there....[S.P.] How many "theories of consciousness" do you know? Can you name, at least, one? By "theory of consciousness" I mean the explanatory framework able to show how the physical sensory signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. For the last 20+ years I am in search for other theorist's version of the theory of consciousness to compare our results, but still in vain.
If we are again looking for a mathematical theory, there is surely none. There are many philosophical theories, which are valuable in other ways but don't really help in any predictions.
Best,
Kushal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals
Bruno Marchal
Mar 25, 2018, 5:55:59 AM3/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 21 Mar 2018, at 09:24, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:43 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:-Cosmin Visan on March 21, 2018 wrote:>Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms> for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly>understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any>such kind of attempt..[S.P.] I would place the horse before the cart: the phenomenon of ESP (extra sensory perception) cannot be properly understood without accounting for the mechanisms of consciousness.Here I think its important to ask what is it that we mean by the phrase "understanding". What do we actually understand about anything? When we say that we understand Newton's laws, what do we actually mean? And do we really understand quantum mechanics? In most cases, "understanding" only means two things : familiarity and mathematical framework. Familiarity with these phenomenon and with consciousness can only be gained through certain spiritual practices well described in Patanjali Yoga Sutras and other such texts. As for mathematical framework, it seems nowhere in sight and will perhaps be this way forever..[Cosmin Visan] wrote:> There are lots of theories for consciousness out there....[S.P.] How many "theories of consciousness" do you know? Can you name, at least, one? By "theory of consciousness" I mean the explanatory framework able to show how the physical sensory signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. For the last 20+ years I am in search for other theorist's version of the theory of consciousness to compare our results, but still in vain.If we are again looking for a mathematical theory, there is surely none.
I disagree. When we “interview” universal machines, which is what Gödel begun (using other terms) we got a precise mathematical theory of consciousness (and of god, matter, etc.). It is testable, as it put 100% constraints on what physics can be, and indeed it predicted quantum mechanics (before I knew it).
The abstract form of that theory is the modal logic G*, which appeared in Solovay’s seminal paper (references can be found in my URL).
Bruno
There are many philosophical theories, which are valuable in other ways but don't really help in any predictions.Best,Kushal.--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABSgQwqu7H6uVZrvwbZNe%2BRbi6nhYF_hZi3qqDCoX7PqBFg3Tg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Kushal Shah
Mar 25, 2018, 9:03:25 PM3/25/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, I was referring to a mathematical theory of consciousness that is well accepted in the scientific community, and there is no such theory. People may claim many things, but it doesn't mean much till it has gone through a wide scrutiny.
Best,
Kushal.
_________________________________________
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1BAA24C4-BD4B-4835-A264-A68461CF0DED%40ulb.ac.be.
Dr Uma Banerjee
Mar 26, 2018, 8:54:35 AM3/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, mukho...@gmail.com
With my limited knowledge about this subject, probably Prof. AK Mukhopadhyay of AIIMS, New Delhi, India can help you .
Regards
UB
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 21, 2018, at 3:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/616ae7a2-9ff7-4d5e-8315-8d9cca4a33b7%40googlegroups.com.
Bruno Marchal
Mar 26, 2018, 2:11:59 PM3/26/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 26 Mar 2018, at 02:52, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno, I was referring to a mathematical theory of consciousness that is well accepted in the scientific community,
The scientific community use the mechanist hypothesis most of time, explicitly or implicitly, with the exception of those who assumes the collapse of the wave packet, but they are non longer a majority. The mechanist assumption is very general, it appears in the “Question to King Milinda”. But it has been made mathematically precise by the discovery of the universal machines (Post, Church, Turing, Kleene, …).
and there is no such theory.
You can see it as a meta theory. It is a general principles, which once made precise, describes precise constraints between truth, the believable, the observable, and the sensible.
People may claim many things, but it doesn't mean much till it has gone through a wide scrutiny.
Yes, and Mechanism make claims testable, and somehow quantum mechanics confirms it admirably, unless we believe in the wave packet reduction, which Feynman called “collective illusion”, if I remember well.
Materialism/physicalism is not logically compatible (except extreme “epicycles”) with Digital Mechanism. That is the fact, you can read my papers, as it represents one half of the work (the second half is the “interview” with the Löbian Number, which gives the testable logic of the observable.
There is more explanations in my other post of today (to you)
Best,
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABSgQwp1qP_LV-YtP_UQSTmXgdarHR23WXj7bWLa1CsGXFRVkA%40mail.gmail.com.
Kushal Shah
Mar 27, 2018, 6:58:46 AM3/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
The scientific community use the mechanist hypothesis most of time, explicitly or implicitly, with the exception of those who assumes the collapse of the wave packet, but they are non longer a majority.
Are you sure that a majority of physicists no longer believe in wave packet collapse?? What other way do we have to explain so many quantum phenomenon? Particle's popping in and out of existence in a quantum field? Thats just another way of referring to the wave function collapse.
Yes, and Mechanism make claims testable, and somehow quantum mechanics confirms it admirably, unless we believe in the wave packet reduction, which Feynman called “collective illusion”, if I remember well.
Can you please share any one testable claim of this meta-theory in the realm of consciousness?
Best,
Kushal.
Serge Patlavskiy
Mar 27, 2018, 8:07:46 AM3/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> on March 27, 2018 wrote:
>Can you please share any one testable claim of this
>meta-theory in the realm of consciousness?
.
[S.P.] A meta-theory, by definition, requires no proofs. It is just a set of postulates and general assertions about Reality we live in.
.
Unlike a meta-theory, the applied theory (for example, the applied theory of consciousness, ESP including) does require proofs -- it must possess a sufficient explanatory and predictive power, be testable, verifiable, repeatable, and so on.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy
From: Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Books/papers about mechanisms for ESPs ?
Paul Werbos
Mar 27, 2018, 11:52:52 AM3/27/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:49 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Does anyone know any books or papers that try to bring mechanisms for ESPs ? Because I think that consciousness cannot be properly understood without accounting for ESP. And so far, I never saw any such kind of attempt. There are lots of theories for consciousness out there and many millions of pages written in the history of man with lots of interesting things about "normal" consciousness. But I never stumbled upon any paper that tries to bring any mechanism for ESP (for example, how can we account for precognition without dealing with temporal paradoxes? what view of time/consciousness we need to adopt in order for precognition to not be paradoxical and problematic? etc.). Anyone knows any such papers?
Thank you for your very serious and important questions, Cosmin. I have certainly attempted such an explanation or mechanism myself, and have some papers to point to. It does not really seem so tricky to me now -- but I still remember when neural networks and deep learning seemed SO incomprehensible to everyone else, and how many ways people have to find difficulty in seeing relatively simple things (especially when the simple things are entangled with other more complicated things and people's sense of identity and so on).
Let me focus first on just one part of your paragraph: the question about MECHANISM for psi.
Since March 1967, when I became open-minded about psi AFTER knowing about things like deep learning and neural networks , I looked far and wide for the kind of explanation or mechanism you are asking about. There were many papers which attempted to explain psi via electromagnetism or by quantum effects as such; however, Dean Radin has summarized his own conclusion here about the failure of electromagnetic explanations, and even QED-based explanations simply cannot live up to most of the basic psi phenomena.
My claim: it is not possible to explain the "signal processing" or "switching" which can connect one person flexibly to other parts of the earth or humanity at will, without
a model assuming some kind of CONNECTIVE STRUCTURE, which I sometimes loosely call "an invisible neural network." (Physically, dark matter and dark energy allow such a thing to be possible even if ordinary QED technology cannot see it.) See https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_conan_doyle_134512.
This leads directly to the explanation for psi which I have developed, which is the only possibility I have seen or been able to find anywhere which does not invoke concepts of the supernatural or ideas like the idea that everything we experience is just a computer simulation. That explanation is
the noosphere species theory, which is summarized (with links to citeable papers) at:
Some aspects of the idea are further depicted at:
I am sorry that I have not had time to put it all together in one integrated paper with all the details, but my time is ever more divided lately. Most of my recent papers have coauthors, which gives an indication of how difficult it is to manage many threads at the same time and how I depend on others more and more.
Others on this list have pointed out that the explanation might be different if we DO invoke concepts other than objective reality. I do not claim to know that such concepts are false, but that it is hard to work with them in real life and I do not assign them more than, say, 30% probability:
=====================
================
That's just to address ONE of your sentences!!!
Psi by itself, and noosphere, are large enough... but yes, precognition and time create additional complexities. Levels and levels of them.
The initial level, simple precognition (what got me started in 1967!) , is actually easier to explain than the psi itself which it builds upon. Even in QED, the dynamics of the universe are symmetric with respect to time. What seems hard to explain, to begin, is WHY everyday life should seem to show such an asymmetry between past and future, when the underlying physics are symmetric. But the physical explanation is simple in retrospect:
P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.
It is simple, but until human culture fully assimilates this first step, it may be premature to go much further, except in narrow circles of those ready to do so.
To assimilate this first step, the world needs to see the results of experiments which directly test and implement the explanation, which I have argued for in dozens of venues, such as: https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6168 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.6168, and a couple of quick more recent papers posted at vixra.org.
These not only provide some way to test the explanation, but also ways to build technology which does the same.
Dealing with temporal paradoxes, the next level, is more difficult. At www.werbos.com/NATO_terrorism.pdf (a citeable book chapter, which I know that prominent folks in the quantum group at Tsinghua have read), I give an initial view, but no one on earth has sorted out all the complex issues.
Best regards,
Paul
Bruno Marchal
Mar 28, 2018, 9:01:22 AM3/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 27 Mar 2018, at 08:50, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:The scientific community use the mechanist hypothesis most of time, explicitly or implicitly, with the exception of those who assumes the collapse of the wave packet, but they are non longer a majority.Are you sure that a majority of physicists no longer believe in wave packet collapse??
Those who believe in it, and are serious, try hard to make sense of it, … without success, like de Broglie, or Bohm.
What other way do we have to explain so many quantum phenomenon? Particle's popping in and out of existence in a quantum field? Thats just another way of referring to the wave function collapse.
It is simpler to just not postulate the collapse, like Everett, Deutsch and others (including Paul Werbos if I understand it well).
Then you get a picture of the physical reality close to what I extracted from arithmetic and Mechanism (long before I realised quantum mechanics without collapse is quite close to this).
Yes, and Mechanism make claims testable, and somehow quantum mechanics confirms it admirably, unless we believe in the wave packet reduction, which Feynman called “collective illusion”, if I remember well.Can you please share any one testable claim of this meta-theory in the realm of consciousness?
The theory of consciousness is basically Theatetus’ old theory of knowledge (true opinion). Socrates criticised it, but incompleteness makes sense its rehabilitation, because after Gödel we know that we cannot genuinely define truth. The claim I made a long time ago is that if the mechanist theory of consciousness is correct, then the physical reality must be explained by some modes of self-reference (like probable and true, or provable and consistent) limited to the semi-computable predicate/propositions. Then the math shows that we get a quantum logical formalism together with an “obvious” many-computations arithmetical interpretation of arithmetical truth.
More precisely, take []p as an abbreviation of Gödel’s provability predicate. By incompleteness, as Gödel noticed already, that provability notion does not obey a logic of knowledge (the machine cannot prove []p -> p for all p), so we get all the following intensional (modal) nuances:
p (the truth of p)
[]p (the provability/believability)
[]p & p (Knowability). ——— gives rise to a quantum logic on p semi-computable.
[]p & ~[]f (Observability) ——— gives rise to a quantum logic on p semi-computable.
[]p & ~[]f & p (Sensibility) ——— gives rise to a quantum logic on p semi-computable.
See Gödel’s original paper of 1931 for the exact definition, in pure arithmetic, of its provability predicate (or ask me, it is simple but tedious to give with all detail, and I don’t want to bore people with too much mathematical details).
To test the theology of number, just compare the physics “in the head of the machine” (described briefly above) with the physics inferred from the observation. It match well, and again incompleteness provides a way to understand the difference between quanta and qualia.
Best,
Bruno
Best,Kushal.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABSgQwpXVNN2gdjak0CUrrmnrf6N7paL_z5FE7GKH%3D0xfHxhLg%40mail.gmail.com.
Paul Werbos
Mar 28, 2018, 9:48:51 AM3/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Clarifying wave function collapse....
Kushal: Are you sure that a majority of physicists no longer believe in wave packet collapse??Bruno: Those who believe in it, and are serious, try hard to make sense of it, … without success, like de Broglie, or Bohm.Kushal: What other way do we have to explain so many quantum phenomenon? Particle's popping in and out of existence in a quantum field? Thats just another way of referring to the wave function collapse.Bruno: It is simpler to just not postulate the collapse, like Everett, Deutsch and others (including Paul Werbos if I understand it well).
In truth, the phrase "collapse of the wave function" is another one of those shifting sands of semantics, which can easily turn into quicksand.
I do remember some collapse theories from Kafato's conference of 1988, which themselves collapsed.
What's more, there has also been an evolution of thought in SOME quarters, as people stopped thinking of "measurement" as something which happens just at the END of an experiment, but as an INTERMEDIATE STAGE. I view the POLARIZER... the key "measurement device" in a Bell experiment... as the quintessential, best understood piece of quantum measurement... but LIGHT GOES OUT of the polarizer and can then be used in multiple further stages of a photonic system.
In quantum technology, one uses many STAGES of macroscopic devices, from polarizers to their more complicated cousins (spin gates, especially)...
What matters in quantum photonic technology is that there are DENSITY matrices at each stage, representing UNCERTAINTY about which wave function Ψ is
actually out there. The mainstream KQED model would say that polarizers DO perform a kind of "collapse", in that a pure state definite wave function gets mapped into a mix of possible wave functions coming out, represented mathematically as a linear transformation which maps a rank one density matrix to a mixed matrix.
There is no difficulty in "making sense" of this IN THE SENSE THAT the standard model of a polarizer is mathematically well-defined, and widely used, and successful in its realm. There are two reasons to question this standard picture:
(1) One can ask "why" polarizers behave in this way;
(2) One can try to look for alternative models, consistent with experiments done so far, testable with new experiments.
Did De Broglie really "fail" in (1)? In a way, that's like asking whether de Chardin's noosphere model was a failure. Yes and no. Key concepts have enduring value, and
simply demand more effort to connect. But no, his complete work through the moment of his death did not complete his program. Better not to revive our old Bohm discussion this week.
I have often proposed that my "MQED" modification of KQED fulfills (2), and reflects an analysis of the physics of polarizers. But on this list... I have to admit that
the new polarizer models DO entail a different KIND of "collapse", more or less a time-symmetric version of the old model, where collapse can occur from present to future, OR in the reverse direction, with some probability, where probabilities come into it because of the thermodynamics of the solid objects.
Best of luck,
Paul
Kushal Shah
Mar 28, 2018, 12:24:22 PM3/28/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno, if you are referring to the multiverse theory, it's not necessarily better or more sensible than wave function collapse. There are many who prefer the latter.
I still don't see any testable prediction of your theory in the realm of consciousness. It's always possible to construct mathematical systems to align with physical models of reality. That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.
Best,
Kushal.
_________________________________________
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/19A79157-2BEB-42DA-B116-35CAC3F1E785%40ulb.ac.be.
Bruno Marchal
Mar 30, 2018, 10:58:01 AM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I have no problem with what you say, although I am not sure what you mean by “different kind of collapse”. For me, Everett explanation (in his long text) is satisfying, except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic.
Best,
Bruno
Paul
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdtDYVywRa_hJkRd90hBb-YKd68x-xB2qoRkVuJ5kZQBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruno Marchal
Mar 30, 2018, 10:58:01 AM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 28 Mar 2018, at 18:11, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno, if you are referring to the multiverse theory,
I am referring to the idea of not adding the collapse axiom to QM, or in other word to the formulation of quantum mechanics without collapse. This leads to the “many worlds”, but the word “world” should not be taken too much seriously. In fact “relative state”is a better expression for this.
Note that I have derived a many-histories “interpretation” of arithmetic well before I knew anything about quantum mechanics, which for me has been for a long time only a “trick” method to study enzyme kinematics.
it's not necessarily better or more sensible than wave function collapse. There are many who prefer the latter.
It is not a question of preferring a theory on another, it is a question of explains better the facts. The collapse axiom just does not make any sense to me. It is equivalent with saying that the Schroedinger equation is false for the observer, and it implies a dualism which requires highly non-mechanist axioms.
I still don't see any testable prediction of your theory in the realm of consciousness.
It is the first theory which predicts the physical Maya, in a precise way enough to be tested, and indeed quantum mechanics (without collapse) fits admirably … up to now (in science we can never be sure, of course).
It's always possible to construct mathematical systems to align with physical models of reality.
Well, I start from the idea that a brain is Turing emulable at a relevant level for “keeping my consciousness”. Then the point is that there is no physical reality at all, but that we can and should explain the physical appearances from the mind of the universal machine or number.
It is not a matter of choice, and people can try non-mechanist theory, but the mechanist theory is the only one which fits with both the quanta and the qualia, in a very precise way. The apparently hard price is that we must backtrack (in Occident at least) to Platonism and Neoplatonism, and abandon Aristotle idea of physicalism or primitive materialism.
That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.
? Hmm… You might need to study my papers. It says a lot of things of the subjective experiences. It entails their existence/truth, their non rational communicability, their undoubtability, their non expressibility, and it provides two entire mathematics for both qualia and quanta. It explains why they look different, etc. By expelling the whole of quanta, it is empirically refutable, and up to now, it fits completely (but the task of verge-fying this is an non ending verification process, like for the Church-Turing thesis, or anything fundamental). I do not claim any truth, but verifiable statements.
It also cut at the root all reductionist theories of numbers and machines. Indeed it unravels the existence of their private subjective experiences.
Best,
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABSgQwrHXo%2BmaYacWYxYeND_U3V9npFsjib_1pYZuqxHa7vDoQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Kushal Shah
Mar 30, 2018, 5:08:50 PM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
It is not a question of preferring a theory on another, it is a question of explains better the facts. The collapse axiom just does not make any sense to me. It is equivalent with saying that the Schroedinger equation is false for the observer, and it implies a dualism which requires highly non-mechanist axioms.
The many-worlds or multiverse idea does not make sense to many in the same way as the collapse axiom does not make sense to you. It is a question of personal preference unless we objectively establish which one of the two is right.
> That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.? Hmm… You might need to study my papers. It says a lot of things of the subjective experiences.
Please share any one paper of yours and point out the page/paragraph where you show how your theory leads to subjective consciousness.
Best,
Kushal.
Paul Werbos
Mar 30, 2018, 5:08:50 PM3/30/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Bruno!
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2018, at 15:40, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:I have often proposed that my "MQED" modification of KQED fulfills (2), and reflects an analysis of the physics of polarizers. But on this list... I have to admit thatthe new polarizer models DO entail a different KIND of "collapse", more or less a time-symmetric version of the old model, where collapse can occur from present to future, OR in the reverse direction, with some probability, where probabilities come into it because of the thermodynamics of the solid objects.
Bruno: I have no problem with what you say, although I am not sure what you mean by “different kind of collapse”. For me, Everett explanation (in his long text) is satisfying, except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic.
Everett's PhD thesis attempted to derive the classical measurement rules (time-forwards collapse, Born rule...) from the dynamics but was not really able to do so.
In
P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9
I pointed out that of course one cannot derive a measurement rule which is asymmetric with respect to time by using or assuming only the dynamics... but by using dynamics AND the boundary conditions provided by sources of free energy, one can derive a MODIFIED version of the measurement rules. At first, I used to say "this is an alternative to collapse," but really, I had to admit that it is a different KIND of collapse. To be symmetric with respect to time, it must admit a probability for a pure state coming "in" from the future and a mixed state going "out" to the past, with a local probability the same as that of going the other way. (Total probability of a scenario is a convolution of all the local probabilities in the experiment.)
Best of luck,
Paul
P.S. Of course, words alone are not precise. My papers at arxiv and my 2015 QIP paper give the equations which these words try to articulate.
Best,BrunoPaul
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgdtDYVywRa_hJkRd90hBb-YKd68x-xB2qoRkVuJ5kZQBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7F4E3D95-3605-406B-A3C1-6DA158682D51%40ulb.ac.be.
Cosmin Visan
Mar 31, 2018, 4:05:49 PM3/31/18
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
This topic is about ESP. Can you please refrain from posting off-topic? Thank you.
Bruno Marchal
Apr 2, 2018, 4:28:17 AM4/2/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Paul,
On 30 Mar 2018, at 20:34, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:On 28 Mar 2018, at 15:40, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:I have often proposed that my "MQED" modification of KQED fulfills (2), and reflects an analysis of the physics of polarizers. But on this list... I have to admit thatthe new polarizer models DO entail a different KIND of "collapse", more or less a time-symmetric version of the old model, where collapse can occur from present to future, OR in the reverse direction, with some probability, where probabilities come into it because of the thermodynamics of the solid objects.Bruno: I have no problem with what you say, although I am not sure what you mean by “different kind of collapse”. For me, Everett explanation (in his long text) is satisfying, except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic.Everett's PhD thesis attempted to derive the classical measurement rules (time-forwards collapse, Born rule...) from the dynamics but was not really able to do so.
I agree very partially on this. I think Everett missed only “the mind-body” problem part of his theory. If you derive the Born rules from the first person indeterminacy on superposition, using mechanism, Everett work is incomplete, and the wave must be derived from the many computations which are executed in arithmetic.
In
P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9
I pointed out that of course one cannot derive a measurement rule which is asymmetric with respect to time by using or assuming only the dynamics…
The asymmetry is phenomenological. It does not exist “really”, in the 3p possible global reality, but it is lived genuinely from the first person view of the relative observers.
but by using dynamics AND the boundary conditions provided by sources of free energy, one can derive a MODIFIED version of the measurement rules.
This seems to me similar to the transactional formulation of QM in a non collapse formulation of QM.
At first, I used to say "this is an alternative to collapse," but really, I had to admit that it is a different KIND of collapse.
I will proceed reading your paper to better understand this.
To be symmetric with respect to time, it must admit a probability for a pure state coming "in" from the future and a mixed state going "out" to the past, with a local probability the same as that of going the other way. (Total probability of a scenario is a convolution of all the local probabilities in the experiment.)
I think there is only a pure state, even just one universal pure state, and that the mixed states are phenomenological internal indexical “subviews".
More on this latter, thanks for the link, best,
Bruno
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgcNrVrNmsj0pj71faVzqLac_sKNg0NBNkAbgwL7gLkrHg%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruno Marchal
Apr 2, 2018, 4:28:17 AM4/2/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Kushal,
On 30 Mar 2018, at 19:02, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:It is not a question of preferring a theory on another, it is a question of explains better the facts. The collapse axiom just does not make any sense to me. It is equivalent with saying that the Schroedinger equation is false for the observer, and it implies a dualism which requires highly non-mechanist axioms.The many-worlds or multiverse idea does not make sense to many in the same way as the collapse axiom does not make sense to you. It is a question of personal preference unless we objectively establish which one of the two is right.> That doesn't say anything about subjective experience which is the prime feature of consciousness.? Hmm… You might need to study my papers. It says a lot of things of the subjective experiences.Please share any one paper of yours and point out the page/paragraph where you show how your theory leads to subjective consciousness.
B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International System Administration and
Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
You need to understand the Universal Dovetailer Argument ( first part of the paper) to get right my assumptions, and how consciousness plays the key role, and then the second part of the paper to understand how we can test the theory of consciousness provided already by the Universal machine.
Best,
Bruno
Kushal.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABSgQwpgNCPzqqgDj-g_s7V78FB8Gh%2BPGDJQ20ovGiyk8_EnMw%40mail.gmail.com.
Ralph Frost
Apr 2, 2018, 2:21:45 PM4/2/18
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Bruno,
Where you say, """...except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic""", in particular does your phrase "self-referiential arithmetic" refer to, imply, require some sort of nested or hierarchical structure of equations, or a recursion recipe?
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Bruno Marchal
Apr 3, 2018, 4:45:04 AM4/3/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Ralph,
On 2 Apr 2018, at 20:10, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno,Where you say, """...except that he uses mechanism, which forces to obtained the wave itself from the phenomenology of self-referential arithmetic""", in particular does your phrase "self-referiential arithmetic" refer to, imply, require some sort of nested or hierarchical structure of equations, or a recursion recipe?
Yes. That nesting is offered freely by being a consequence of arithmetic Turing Universality. All universal numbers reflect all others universal numbers, like the Indra net of pearls all reflecting all the other pearls.That entails an infinite dynamical nesting automatically (in the arithmetical realm). They differentiate dynamically with more intriguing nesting, and nobody can even define the whole structure from inside, not even use any name for it.
Kind wishes,
Bruno
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/c569474a-5afd-4a50-984e-160112098b5c%40googlegroups.com.
Ralph Frost
Apr 3, 2018, 1:01:24 PM4/3/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,
Who are you calling no one?
The stuff inside and out is just NSD ... nested structured-duality.
R
Ralph,
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2b_Q69z8x-c/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/E9B7E53E-C1F3-4C7B-97A4-BE9DF0DD71A9%40ulb.ac.be.
Bruno Marchal
Apr 5, 2018, 6:00:42 AM4/5/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ralph,
On 3 Apr 2018, at 18:40, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bruno,
Who are you calling no one?The stuff inside and out is just NSD ... nested structured-duality.
Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this (even without mechanism).
Bruno
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHRChLcxPzN08d%3D3LM_NUQ3qd%2BQUYd4UcUT8xCoA-cUYCOSBOw%40mail.gmail.com.
Whit Blauvelt
Apr 5, 2018, 11:43:27 AM4/5/18
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:55:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and
> substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes
> no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this
> (even without mechanism).
"Stuff" is "things." Doesn't your numerancy apply to counting _things_? Then
> Which stuff? What is stuff? I am very skeptical on any notion of stuff and
> substance. I try hard to never refer to things like that, which provably makes
> no sense with mechanism, but also, I have never been able to make sense of this
> (even without mechanism).
"stuff" is just "things" in indeterminate number.
If your numbers are real yet the things numbered are not, then it's as if
you life in a universe of adjectives but no nouns. If there's a pile of
things -- also known as "stuff" -- I can ask what kind of pile? Someone
might answer "red things." You might answer "7 things." You likely want to
say "7" is in a category far surer than "red." Numerous skeptics believe in
countable frequencies, yet not in the quales of those frequences in human
vision, for instance. Yet it seems you are more a realist about the quales.
(I am, anyway.)
You make numbers the most fundamental (things?). If numbers are things, I'd
say you call numbers the most fundament stuff. Or would you say "There's no
such stuff"?
Where you have addition as fundamental, that can be seen as a correlary to a
sort of non-numeric "division." There is nothing knowable in an
undifferentiated unity. Difference is required for any universe any being
may be conscious of. Difference implies division, differentiality. Once
divided, things are countable. So math comes in, by this account, right at
the beginning -- not disagreeing with you on that. Yet that can be the case
while maintaining math's adjectival relationships with stuff's noun.
I did meet a philosopher once who believes the universe is entirely
adjectival, and nounless. But we were drinking heavily that night, and I've
forgotten his name. He was quite excited about his claim.
Best,
Whit
Ralph Frost
Apr 5, 2018, 11:43:27 AM4/5/18