Re: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?

From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 10:59:02 -0700 wrote:
> On May 8, 3:56 pm, Brent Meeker <> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> 'The Laws of Physics' don't refer to human notions (they certainly
>>> are not regarded that way by scientists
>> They are by the scientists I know.
> The *knowledge* we have of the laws of physics are human notions. But
> the laws of physics *per se* are not.

All the laws of physics we know of, or ever will know of, are.

>See other post. Think computer
> science and information. Our concepts are information and so is
> reality.

How do you know what reality is?

>So in the case of useful concepts there has to be a partial
> match between the information content of the concepts and the
> information content of reality. This means we can infer properties
> about reality from our concepts. The distinction between map and
> territory is not absolute. A simulated hurricane for instance, has
> *some* of the exact same *information content* as a real hurricane.

But some is not all. The hurricane embodies the information of our fluid dynamic model of a hurricane plus a whole lot more.

>>> - the whole notion of an
>>> objective reality would have be thrown out the window if we thought
>>> that there were no objective laws of physics since as mentioned,

True. But ask yourself why you think there is an objective reality, as opposed to being a brain in a vat or a simulation in a computer or a number in a UD? It's not because you perceive reality directly.

>>> physics is the base level of reality), but are precise mathematical
>>> rules which have to be (postulated as) *universal* in scope for the
>>> scientific method to work at all.
>> Sure, they are precise mathematical systems, which the scientist hopes and intends to describe (part of) an objective reality. But the map is not the territory and scientists know it.
> See above. And read Tegmark's paper! ;) In the case of mathematics
> the distinction between map and territory is breaking down. Remember
> what we agreed on earlier - math is *both* epistemological (a map we
> use to understand reality) *and* ontological (the territory itself)

I have never agreed that mathematics has the same ontological status as "reality" (whatever that is). I think mathematics is all a human construct which is used to describe reality and a lot of other stuff. I've read Tegmark's paper; that doesn't mean I accept it as 'the truth'.

Brent Meeker

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 Tue May 08 2007 - 13:59:04 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST