Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> LZ:
> >
> >
> > Colin Hales wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >>The underlying structure unifies the whole
> >> system. Of course you'll get some impact via the causality of the
> structure....via the deep structure right down into the very fabric of
> space.
> >> In a very real way the existence of 'mysterious observer dependence' is
> actually proof that the hierarchically organised S(.) structure idea
> must be
> >> somewhere near the answer.
> >
> > Not really. You can have a two-way causal interdependene between two
> systems without them both having th esame structure.
>
> I think you are assuming a separateness of structure that does not exist.
It obviously does exist , up to a point. I am separate form this
keyboard.
(and let's not confuse separateness and difference...)
> There is one and one only structure.
If you want ot look at it that way. But it is no
undifferentiated within itself.
> We are all part of it. There is no
> concept of 'separate' to be had.
yes there is: spatial separation.
> Absolutely everything is included in the
> structure. No exceptions. Space, atoms, scientists, qualia. All
> interactions at all 'scales' (scale itself) are all interactions between
> different parts of the one structure. To interact at all is to interact
> with another part of the structure.
"another" in what sense ? You just said there is *no* concept
of separation.
> The idea of there being anything else
> ('not' the structure) is meaningless. If there is any 'thing' in the
> structure then the balance of the structure expressed a perfect un-thing.
> There is nothing else. That is the coincept I am exploring.
None of that has anything to do with your claim that there is
a single *type* of structure, and that everything is composed of
recursive combinations of its instances.
It may be the case that everything is ultimately part of one strucutre,
but
that does not imply that everything within the Great Strucutre is
self-similar.
> >
> >> Note that we don't actually have to know what S(.) is to make a whole pile
> >> of observations of properties of organisations of it that apply regardless
> >> of the particular S(.). It may be we never actually get to sort out the
> specifics of S(.)! (I have an idea, but it doesn't matter from the
> point
> >> of
> >> view of understanding qualia as another property of the structure like
> atoms).
> >
> >> In Bruno's terms the structure of S(.) is what he calls 'objective
> reality'.
> >> I would say that in science the first person view has primacy.
> >
> > Epistemic or Ontic ?
>
> These are just words invented by members of the structure.
So is "structure".
That wasn't a problem before, why should it be now.
> But I'll try.
> The structure delivers qualia in the first person. Those qualia are quite
> valid 'things' (virtual matter)..organisation/behaviour of structure.
Qualia are not ust organisation and behaviour, or there
would be no hard problem.
> Their presentation bestows intrinsic knowledge as a measurement to the
> embedded structure member called the scientist. This is knowledge as
> intrinsic intentionality.
Are yu saying that qualia are marked by intentionality ?
That would be novel.
",, qualia are intrinsic, consciously accessible, NON-INTENTIONAL
features of sense-data and other non-physical phenomenal objects that
are responsible for their phenomenal character."
S.E.P, my emphasis.
> Within the experiences is regularity which can
> then be characterised as knowledge attributed to some identified behaviour
> in the structure. This attribution is only an attribution as to behaviour
> of the structure, not the structure. These attributions can be used by a
> another scientist in their 'first person' world.
I still think "strcuture" is an unhappy term for soemthign which
cannot be reduced to abstract relations and behaviour.
> All of this is derived from a first person presentation of a measurement.
> Ergo science is entirely first operson based.
The fact that science happens to be performed by persons
doesn't make it irreducibly first-personal. That would
depend on whether persons can remove themselves from
scientific descriptions. As it happens they can. That
is still true with much-misunderstood issue of
quantum "observer" involvement, since
that is really apparatus-involvement. No observer
ever influenced an experiment without changing the settings of some
apparatus.
> Epistemic and Ontic
> characters are smatter throughout this description. I could label them all
> but you already know and the process adds nothing to the message or to
> sorting out how it all works.
> >> I'd say that
> >> we formulate abstractions that correlate with agreed appearances within
> the
> >> first person view. However, the correspo0ndence between the underlying
> structure and the formulate abstractions is only that - a correlation.
> Our
> >> models are not the structure.
> >
> > *Could* they be the structure ? if it necessarily
> > the case that the "structure" cannot be modelled, then
> > it is perhaps no strcuture at all.
> >
>
> Which is the simpler and more reasonable basis upon which to explore the
> universe:
> 1) The universe is literally constructed by some sort of
> 'empirical_law_in_ a_certain_context embodiment machine' by means unknown
> that has appearances that cannot be predicted by empirical laws.
> (logically equivalent to "the laws of nature are invoked by the purple
> baloon people of the horsehead nebula")
????
> or
>
> 2) The universe is a structure of which we are a part and which also has
> the property of delivering appearances of itself to us within which is
> regularity that can be captured mathematically.
This is a combination of two claims:
2a) The universe is a structure properly-so-called of which we are a
part and
which also has the property of delivering appearances of itself to us
within which is
regularity that can be captured mathematically, with no residue, so
that
everything is full expressible in mathematical, structural and
relational
terms. (ie eliminative physicalism)
2b) The universe is a "structure" which we are a part and, but
contains
irreducibly non-relational and non-functional aspects (and is therefore
not a structure in the strict sense of the term)
which also has the property of delivering appearances of itself to us
within which is
regularity that can be captured mathematically and also aspects that
cannot
be so capture, leading to a Hard Problem. (property dualism)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 08:12:23 PDT