MN: 'If an
>> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
>> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
>
> Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
> 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
> imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
> - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
> orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' <and that's
a lovely way to put put it now isn't it> is exactly what I was
thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be
the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the
universe writ small.
one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where
_our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty
space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane
predominates.
Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
David Nyman wrote:
> On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <mpe....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>> I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
>> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
>> relationships entail existence and difference.
>
> I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
> whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
> a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I
> suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
> usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification.
>
>> Particles of matter are knots,
>> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
>> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
>> whatever other structural/topological features occur.
>
> Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno
> has had something to say about this in the past.
>
>> If an
>> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
>> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
>
> Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
> 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
> imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
> - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
> orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
>
> David
>
>
>> DN: '
>>
>>> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
>>> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
>>> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
>>> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
>>> a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
>>> 'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
>>> liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
>>> feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
>>> then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
>>> continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
>>> from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
>> MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
>> crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
>> "Why is there anything at all?"
>>
>> As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
>> 'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
>> As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
>> explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
>> simple minded view :-)
>>
>> Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; "I don't exist"
>> is either metaphor or nonsense.
>> As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
>> parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
>> Currently this makes me sympathetic to
>> * a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
>> it's just not our brane/s] and
>> * a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.
>>
>> I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
>> unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
>> arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
>> that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
>> something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
>> relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
>> relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
>> 'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
>> and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
>> mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
>> differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
>>
>> In this simplistic take we have something akin to yin and yang
>> of ancient Chinese origin. In contrast to the Chinese conception
>> however, we know nothing of the 'other' one; the name is not
>> important, just that _our_ universe is either of yin or yang and
>> the other one provides what otherwise we must call
>> 'nothingness'. In this conception existence, the ultimate
>> basement level of our space-time, is simple connections, which I
>> described previously in a spiel about Janus [the connections]
>> and quorums {the nodes]. Gravity may be the continuous
>> simplification of connectivity and the reduction of nodes which
>> results in a constant shrinkage of the space-time fabric in the
>> direction of smallwards. Particles of matter are knots,
>> topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
>> properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
>> whatever other structural/topological features occur. The
>> intrinsic virtual movement of the space-time fabric in the
>> direction of smallwards where the knots exist should produce
>> interesting emergent properties akin to vortices and standing
>> waves with harmonics.
>>
>> For anyone still reading this, a reminder that each 'Janus'
>> connection need have no internal structure and therefore no
>> 'internal' distance, save perhaps the Planck length, so each
>> face would connect with others in a 'quorum' or node. This
>> provides a potential explanation of quantum entanglement in that
>> if each of the two faces of a Janus connection were in different
>> particles, those particles might be fleeing from each other at
>> the speed of light, or something close to it, yet for that
>> particular Janus connection each face will still be simply the
>> back side of its twin such that their temporal separation might
>> be no more than the Planck time.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mark Peaty CDES
>>
>> mpe....domain.name.hidden
>>
>> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
>>
>> David Nyman wrote:
>>> On Jun 12, 2:01 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>>>> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
>>>> We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
>>>> (Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
>>>> reflexivity power of the number's themselves.
>>> I simply meant that in AR numbers 'assert themselves', in that they
>>> are taken as being (in some sense) primitive rather than being merely
>>> mental constructs (intuitionism, I think?) Is this not so?
>>>> OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure
>>>> there remains technical problems ...)
>>> I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
>>> field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
>>> fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
>>> 'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
>>> a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
>>> 'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
>>> liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
>>> feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
>>> then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
>>> continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
>>> from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?
>>>> Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
>>>> interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
>>>> physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
>>>> the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
>>>> the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
>>>> the right physics, that would be nice, sure.
>>> Agreed. But actually I meant that you would wish it to be an
>>> empirical matter (rather than Father Jack's 'ecumenical' one!)
>>> It seems to me that overall in this exchange we seem to be more in
>>> agreement than sometimes formerly. Would you still describe my
>>> position as positing 'consciousness' as primitive? That's not my own
>>> intuition. Rather, I'm trying to reverse the finger we point towards
>>> the 'external' world when we seek to indicate the direction of 'what
>>> exists'. I'm also stressing the immediacy of the mutual 'grasp' that
>>> self-motivates the elements of what is real, and which constitutes
>>> simultaneously their 'awareness' and their 'causal power' - and
>>> consequently our own. Beyond this, we seem to be in substantial
>>> agreement that all complexity, including of course reflexive self-
>>> consciousness', is necessarily a higher-order emergent from such basic
>>> givens (which seem to me, in some form at least, intuitively
>>> unavoidable).
>>> David
>>>> Le 11-juin-07, à 13:24, David Nyman wrote in part: (I agree with the
>>>> non quoted part) ....
>>>>> Are we any closer to agreement, mutatis terminoligical mutandis? My
>>>>> scheme does not take 'matter' to be fundamental, but rather an
>>>>> emergent (with 'mind') from something prior that possesses the
>>>>> characteristics of self-assertion, self-sensing, and self-action. I
>>>>> posit these because they are what is (Occamishly) required to save the
>>>>> appearances.
>>>> ... And here too.
>>>>> If we take AR to be that which is self-asserting,
>>>> We don't have too, even without comp, in the sense that, with AR
>>>> (Arithmetical Realism) we cannot not take into account the relative
>>>> reflexivity power of the number's themselves.
>>>>> with
>>>>> its intrinsic (arithmetical) set of symmetry-breaking axioms,
>>>> OK (but again the "symmetry-breaking" is a consequence (too be sure
>>>> there remains technical problems ...)
>>>>> then
>>>>> COMP perhaps can stand for the process that drives this potential
>>>>> towards emergent layers of self-action and self-sensing.
>>>> Yes. Perhaps, indeed.
>>>>> It then
>>>>> becomes an empirical programme whether AR+COMP possesses the synthetic
>>>>> power to save all the necessary phenomena.
>>>> Exactly.
>>>>> As you would wish it, I
>>>>> imagine.
>>>> Actually if COMP does not give the right physics, that would be
>>>> interesting too. In such a case we could use comp and experimental
>>>> physics to measure somehow the degree of non-computability, well not of
>>>> the physical world which is necessary not completely computable with
>>>> the comp hyp, but of our mind. But of course if comp leads directly to
>>>> the right physics, that would be nice, sure.
>>>> Bruno
>>>> htttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jun 22 2007 - 09:26:59 PDT