On 22/06/07, Mark Peaty <mpeaty.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
MP:
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?
DN:
.....and if they have babies, where the ortho-dimensional-hell are we going
to find baby-sitters? Seriously though folks, what I enjoy about such
speculations, pace more rigorous mathematico-physical investigation (of
which I am incapable), is to try to understand how they converge on the
implicit semantics we use to intuit meaning from the worlds we inhabit.
It's a bit like comparative philology, in the sense of reconciling
narratives coded in different symbols, to explicate a common set of
intuitions. But on the other hand this may just be what Russell, more
acerbically, calls gibberish (and he may be right!)
David
>
> 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 - 09:48:57 PDT