Re: A sequel to my 1996 "ultimate ensemble theory" paper

From: Jayceetout <>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:43:46 -0700

Hi Max,
In line with my preoccupation and passion: consciousness......... I
confine my comments to that narrow scope and offer the following
observations (which I did with my phenomenal consciousness! :-)

Page 4 Section D.
I cannot utter a 'WOOHOO!' too loud here, to finally see these kinds
of words appearing. There is a long record on this forum of me trying
to get people to _really_ grasp the nature of the difference between
"Description/Appearance(apparent causal necessity)/Phenomenon" to
"Explanation/Actual Causal Necessity/Noumenon". In Max's work we
clearly have the arrival of a scientifically valid noumenon.

You may be aware that I have been raving on ad nauseum here recently
about my "EC", which literally is a 'MUH'. The universe literally 'is'
an instantated EC, say MUHcol. We humans are literally an ongoing
proof written in EC.....albeit of a different nature to the one
proposed, say MUHmax. The difference between MUHmax and MUHcol are not
important - the fact of the clear appreciation and expression of the
ontological/epistemological 'cut' (as Howard Pattee[2] puts it) and
distinction is what is important. ..........the words clearly
distinguish 'being' from 'appearance'. They embed the origins of all
knowledge as sourced subjectively from within it....through the
embedded agency of the FROG scientist's depiction of the BIRD side of
the cut.

More than that, the words emerge in a way that is hard to argue
against without appearing (at least methodologically/virtually) to
hold rather bizarre views about the ontology (underlying reality) of
the universe - ...far more bizarre than any the final
para clearly shows. so ............YES!

RE: Frogs and Birds
Having said the above, I detect a possible small crack in the Bird/
Frog depiction that might open up a door for unfounded criticism
from those who struggle to see the difference between a noumenon and
phenomenon. What you are describing is what I have written about
(rather badly!) [1]: It is a 'dual aspect science'. What I described
there is the phenomenon aspect (T = FROG) and the 'noumenon' aspect
(T' = BIRD). Both are completely equivalent descriptions of the same
thing, the universe U(.) as T' and how that universe appears (T') when
you are made of it, inside it, with observational capacities delivered
by T', _not_ T. The 'helicopter/bird' view metaphor is not quite
right, IMO - the MUH is a noumenon and not to be confused with an
'objective view' (there is no such thing!)...the BIRD metaphor might
confuse things.

The missing subtlety, which undermines all empirical support for
MUHmax, is that both the FROG's view _AND_ the BIRD's view are
equally supported by any and all empirical work. (with specific ref to
the isomorphism sentence on P4, section D). The FROG can lay no claim
to exclusive use of empirical work - for the noumenon is the thing
that is actually generating the 'observation' intrinsic in you
say on P4, top.....'processes that give rise to the familiar
sensations of self awareness' ......that the FROG has... that are the
single, mandated and only sources of all scientific evidence (where
scientist = FROG, and everything about the MUH is a product of that
perspective). Without that faculty there is no science.

I hope I am making sense here....I don't think you have made enough
mileage out of this brute FROG/BIRD reality as regards their place as
equals in provision of DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION resp. using the same
evidence system: phenomenal consciousness.

RE: Final Note
There is one aspect to MUH which remains completely absent and which,
IMO, is absolutely vital to any real 'TOE'..... Whilst recognizing
that 'it is like something' to be FROG.....MUHmax provides no basis
for the necessity that it be 'like something' to be FROG under the
circumstances of being configured as a FROG. That 'contents of
consciousness/that which is seen/observed', is the single source of
all scientific evidence used in support of all FROG and BIRD MUH rule
sets (=FROG/BIRD aspect science)....Fine...But nowhere is the paper
MUHmax explanatory of how the BIRD view/descriptions provide the
phenomenal consciousness that the FROG uses to do observation in
support of all propositions for either collection of rules. After is not the FROGs descriptions, derived _directly using_
observation of MUH that deliver the observations.........this is
oxymoronic.....rather it is the noumenon (The BIRD rules of MUHmax)
that delivers observation (the faculty of observation, through which
all FROG views are delivered).

A TOE must deliver 'everything', right? Well this chunk of
'everything' is not in the paper. None of the QM or anything else in
your paper does it, nor does it propose a principle upon which it may
be delivered....AFAICT. Maybe I missed it or have wires
crossed....Having said that, I don't believe you actually have to
deliver it right now............what is more important is mere
recognition of the need and a clear delineation of the responsibility
for the ultimate source of the FROG's ability to observe as BIRD-
aspect rules, not FROG-aspect rules.

To me the detail of the MUHmax is a side issue to the real message of
your paper......regardless of the chosen MUH (there could be 100
flavours including a MUHbruno and so on....), what has to happen to
science is that it must go 'dual aspect' and recognise KANT's error
that the noumenon is scientifically intractable........and that is,
in effect, what you have done...IMHO...of course....

I hope this is of some use..........

colin hales

[1] Hales, C. 'AI and Science's Lost Realm', IEEE Intelligent
Systems vol. 21, no. 3, 2006. 76-81.
[2] Pattee, H. H. 'The physics of symbols: bridging the epistemic
cut', Biosystems vol. 60, no. 1-3, 2001. 5-21.

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 Thu Apr 19 2007 - 00:44:01 PDT

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