And of course you could always add <ASPECT 0> - all possible instances of
<ASPECT 1>....
--------- 3-line Narnia ---------
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
--------- McSweeney's ---------
2008/10/13 Colin Hales <c.hales.domain.name.hidden>
> From the "everything list" ....FYI
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
> represents the current state of QM.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
>
>
>
> Jesse Maser wrote:
>
> The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists often discuss them nevertheless.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to know
> where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to give you
> the red pill.
>
> Name any collection of QM physicist you like....name any XYZ
> interpretation, ABC interpretations....Blah interpretations... So what? You
> say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not see that
> I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled 'taboo' ? Did you
> not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?" Read Stapp's book: BOHR
> makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is programmed to think by
> the training a physicist gets...It's like there's some sort of retreat into
> a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like this then I'll get listened
> to"....
>
> *and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion.* This
> is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that fact that
> science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a club and the
> players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even plainer with set
> theory:
>
> <ASPECT 1> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
> <ASPECT 2> = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
> including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
> science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
>
> FACT
> <ASPECT 1:> = {Null}
> FACT
> <ASPECT 2> = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor do
> they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who has a
> clue about it agrees that this is the case}
>
> In other words, scientists have added special laws to <ASPECT 2> that
> masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs. Beliefs
> about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of quantum mechanical
> descriptions. EG: Stapp's "cloud-like" depiction. I put it to you that
> reality <ASPECT 1> could have every single particle in an exquisitely
> defined position simultaneously with just as exquisitely well defined
> momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or physical 'fuzziness'. I quite
> well defined particle operating in a dimensionality slightly higher than our
> own could easily appear fuzzy.....There is merely *lack of knowledge* and
> the reality of us as observers altering those very things when we
> observe....standard measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is
> COMPLETELY consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons
> are 'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an <aspect 1> reality
> that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To believe
> that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths seems to be
> consistent with that...utter delusion...
>
> Physics has also added a special law to <ASPECT 2>, a 'law of nature' which
> reads as follows: "Physicists do not and shall not populate set <ASPECT 1>
> because, well just because....".
>
> Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible for
> everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity to
> populate <ASPECT 2>. Abstractions of reality derived through
> P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
> necessity, and if incorporated in <ASPECT 2> as an explanation of
> P-consciousness, become meta-belief...."I belief that this other <aspect 2>
> law has explained P-consciousness...." when it clearly does not because NONE
> of <aspect 2> PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS. As to
> 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an <ASPECT 1> reality - responsible
> for the faculty that provides all observation, any less witnessed than
> anything is <ASPECT 2>? You are implicltly denying P-cosnciousness ITSELF
> and positing it as having been already explained in some way by CONTENTS of
> P-consciousness (that is literally, in context, scientific observation). Do
> you see that?
>
> In this way, solving for consciousness is systemically proscribed, along
> with the permanent failure to solve P-consciousness. Every example where I
> have discovered anyone attempting to populate <ASPECT 1> or even positing a
> mechanism by which that might happen....is systematically ignored and
> marginalised.
>
> Actual underlying reality creates P-consciousness. Nothing else. Until we
> allow ourselves to populate <aspect 1> we will NEVER explain anything, let
> alone P-consciousness. We will only describe. If we believe we already
> explained anything then we have installed a metapelief in the <ASPECT 1> set
> and we are living it as a religion. If we believe that <aspect 1> is
> unapproachable for no other reason than cultural preference then DITTO.
>
> I hope you get this.
>
> I finished Henry Stapp's book. There's a bunch of stuff about dual aspect
> and whitehead, which would be good except....all of it is couched in terms
> of ascription of QM as having an ontological role: a universe made of
> anstract maths descriptions. So frustrating. There is an inability to be
> able to comprehend the difference between maths as abstracted description of
> appearances and "literal reality, also described with further abstractions,
> by an observer made of it".
>
> *As scientists we haven't even begun to populate <ASPECT 1>. We need to
> start. The delusions that are in place in <aspect 2> are far more bizarre
> than any sane approach to a characterisation of reality that involves
> populating a <aspect 1> that is explanatory of P-consciousness.
> *
> Or you can take the blue pill.... the status quo... and live a deluded
> science model in which a clubbish, fashion ridden maths rapture
> rules...something I cannot do.
>
> regards,
>
> 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 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 Mon Oct 13 2008 - 07:45:48 PDT