Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia

From: <marc.geddes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:29:33 -0000

>Smolin's loop quantum gravity is the physics of the soul which has not
>yet fallen (!). String theory, or better the string theories landscape
>(as described by Smolin himself) would describe ... the gate of hell,
>or the state of the fallen soul: the fourth hypostase

Very funny. So... I take it you don't like String Theory and think
loop quantum gravity is the way the truth and the light? ;)

>But the point here is that "timelessness critics" are again generated
>by an internal first person plural view, and to make it ontic would be
>a nth instantiation of Aristotle fundamental mistake of reifying time,
>space and matter, despite the beauty feature of loop gravity that time,
>space, and particles are fundamentally emergent ....

>Bruno

I'm prepared to believe that space and particles are not fundamental
but are emergent. However Bruno, I'm not yet convinced the same is
true for time. I don't see how time can be removed from our
descriptions of reality. I'll read the things you mention at some
point.


>We may concentrate on the part humanly comprehensible, but in the
>wholistic view we cannot make it a substantial part of the existence.

>John M

Of course. I certainly didn't man to restrict the conception of
reality to reality which was only comprehensible to humans. Just to
clarify: when I said that 'eXistenZ' was 'comprehensible reality' I
didn't mean 'comprehensible to humans' I meant 'comprehensible to SOME
mind' (which may be much greater than human). ie. Comprehensible in
principle.

Reality which is 'Comprehensible in principle' is of course much
greater than reality which is 'Comprehensible only to humans'. By
'Incomprehensible' I meant the parts of reality which would be
incomprehensible to ANY mind, even in principle.

As for the vagueness of the definitions for Energy, Volition and
Information you are quite right! But this was exactly my point: these
three concepts apparently cannot be directly defined, only referenced
by their effects or 'potential'. They appear to be incomprehensible
concepts (incomprehensible to ALL minds, humans or not).


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Thu Sep 28 2006 - 20:32:14 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST