Re: computer pain

From: Colin Geoffrey Hales <>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:27:24 +1100 (EST)

Brent said:
> Of course they describe things - they aren't the things themselves.
> But the question is whether the description is complete. Is there
> anything about EM fields that is not described by QED?

Absolutely HEAPS! Everything that they are made of and how the components
inteact to make something that naturally appears to us to look QEDish.

> If you can find it you'll be famous by morning.

Can you throw moiney instead? Much more useful!
-------------------- seriously....

Consider your statement:
> Is there anything about EM fields that is not described by QED?

No. And there's nothing more about quantum mechanical behaviour that us
not described by quantum mechanics. There is nothing more about
gravitational motion that is not described by the laws of gravitation and
so on and so on. It's not that they are incomplete. They are irrelevant!
It's that none of them depict underlying causality - only 'apparent
causality' when viewed with our phenomenal consciousness. They were
created grounded in our phenomenal fields.

The killer assumption is that the descriptions of appearances that are our
empirical laws contain all that is needed to describe our 'appearance
generator' (which includes pain).

Consider that our entire way of viewing the universe was through
oil-paintings. Everything we know has been concocted through correlating
the contents of oil paintings. Cows. Sunsets. Trees. :-) There is
absolutely nothing in any 'law of correlated oil painting contents' that
would predict the existence of oil paintings or the nature of paint. One
day you decide to go look at what is producing the oil paintings...via an
oil painting, of course....what do you see? An oil painting of a painter.
You still know nothing about paint. But by god you know what the painter
looks like, so you have a clue - a place to start.

The problem is that you need to have a completely separate set of
desriptions of a universe made of candidate 'something' that is capable of
making perceivers to whom the universe appears like it does and therefore
appears to be run by all the empirical laws we have.

The descriptions of an underlying reality will look nothing like our
current empirical laws. I would predict that the only exploration of the
detail of such a system is computationally using cellular automata and
some simple basic relationships between instances of candidate

This is dual aspect science. Note that all it does is move the mystery
back a bit!

Say I am successful. I have 'assumed something' which behaves QMly, QEDly,
ATOMly and a CA-noumenon of interacting 'assumed
something'.... at the end of the day I still have a mystery of a similar
kind... what is the "assumed something" made of? It may be we never know
that, but at least we have a better grip on the natural world that is
_sane_! Currently we either think the universe is literally made of
appearances (nuts) or that there is a 'natural laws computer' running our
empirical laws underneath run by whom? Aliens? (even more nuts).

Personally I'd rather have a CA-noumenon/Empirical law science that is
compatible with all empirical laws and that moves the mystery to a well
defined place for others to work on...than these rather odd assumptions.

So it's not that laws of science are wrong or inadequate or "complete", as
you say above - it's that they are completely irrelevant in the context of
a description of the universe inclusive of a perceiver of it, in it, made
of it.

Colin Hales

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Dec 15 2006 - 16:27:49 PST

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