Re: Comments on The Mathematical Universe

From: Colin Hales <>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:41:17 +1000

RE: Gill Jannes -

It's strange how cracks in the received view emerge and propagate. The
issues in this paper are exactly the issues that lead to my construction
of the 'Dual Aspect Science' paper, which I have tried to attach to this
email[1]. The Jannes words that stand out for me:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
(b) Page 9. "Thinking of the relata as the concrete objects that we
encounter from *experience or observation*, and their relations as
structures described by human-independent abstract mathematics, is a
serious oversimplification, as illustrated by my third argument."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Yes yes yes! Serious indeed. The solution to the conundrum is literally
the Dual Aspect Science (DAS) framework. The framework isolates the
reality of existing empirical science (all of it, as we currently
inhabit it) as:

(i) intrinsically and systematically conflating scientific measurement
with scientific observation. _It is even in the Jannes quote above.
(ii) erecting extra belief systems 'about' the laws thus created
(iii) trying to get at a (i) version of a 'theory of everything' (TOE)
by assuming that there is one, single one of these to be got from our
position inside the described system.
(iv) Systematically constructing TOEs that are theories of everything
EXCEPT scientists and scientific observation and then deciding that is
'everything', rather than merely 'everything that such a theory can
(v) The existence of a pre-perceptual universe is also mistaken for a
universe without a scientist in it!

This I find very frustrating. A description of a pre-perceptual universe
is easy to construct. All you have to do is postulate that the universe
is made of an ambiguous structural primitive, say X_stuff, and then stop
making that an identity with the 'stuff' revealed by an observer made of
X_stuff, within the described system of X_stuff. The description of :

(a) relating _non-unique_ X_stuff (that can create an observer of
X_stuff's appearances)
(b) the _non-unique_ descriptions of Jannes' "concrete objects that
we encounter from experience or observation"

_do not have to be the same description_. Currently we do (b) only
(Single-Aspect Science = SAS). Neither (a) nor (b) need be assumed
unique. Nor are we justified in forcing of (a) = (b) or (a) =
impossible. We need to get over ourselves as revealers of the single
ultimate truth....this, in its worst light - is religion. This is our
biggest problem. The rot set in when quantum mechanics became a religion
in the early 20th century.

(a) and (b) are two completely separate but intimately enmeshed/mutually
consistent but non-unique descriptions of which (b) is customised to the
(HUMAN) observer. To an alien observer with a different observational
capacity: (b) would be the same and (a) would be different. However,
both human and alien would be equally predictive! Both human and alien
are made of the same (a) stuff.

Why do we continually conflate explanation with description and elevate
them both beyond a status as merely having predictive utility?
Why do we continually fantasise about realities as mathematics or some
other 'ism-made-real?
What is so wrong with describing an underlying reality?
Why do we insist we are outside the system we describe from within, when
the situation literally defines how we describe it?

The attached DAS framework solves all these issues with a 100%
empirically testable outcome. DAS puts together 02 completely separate
sets of 'laws of nature'. The existing one (T) is is appearances
explored as grammar. The new one (T') is structure explored with
automata. The upgrade SAS => DAS is seamless. Nothing is lost. SAS laws
remain intact. _Both are equally empirically supported by the evidence
system: human P-consciousness_. The T' set explains P-consciousness. You
need zero extra belief systems. You need zero philosophy (what I
reluctantly call metaphysics). Indeed you can completely abandon
consideration of all 'isms as '/interesting but predictively inert/'.

The big RUB? You have to accept that the universe is fundamentally
unknowable at some level - or 100% knowable only in an
asymptotically/limiting condition fashion. Physicists have to 'get over'
the idea of a one-stop-shop TOE. The good bit? You finally get to truly
explain things (in a causal necessity sense) - instead of merely
describing them and then believing you have explained.

For those interested... the DAS work may be viewed as a rework of
Bohmian implicate/explicate order, where I have extended 'hidden
variables' to include EVERYTHING (as an underlying structure). The
underlying structure is separately described and joined, not merely with
a neat seam with existing quantum mechanics (via quantum potentials), -
but joined with the rest of science through the prediction of an
observer who sees a universe behaving (b)-ly. The 'hidden variables' are
literally the underlying structure (yes, a real living, scientifically
tractable pre-perceptual noumenon) - which is described using
CRUTCHFIELD style automata, not grammar.

Stare at the automata = structure aspect.
Be inside the automata = appearance aspect

Two aspects.

colin hales.
[1] Hales, C. 'Dual Aspect Science', Journal of Consciousness Studies
vol. 16, no. 2-3, 2009. 30-73.

ronaldheld wrote:
> I think the author presents some good arguments.
> >

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 Wed Apr 08 2009 - 14:41:17 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST