Dear Hal and Bruno,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: ""Hal Finney"" <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
>
> Le 05-juin-05, à 05:53, Hal Finney a écrit :
snip
>> That is the sense in which I say that observer-moments are primary;
>> they are the most fundamental experience we have of the world.
>> Everything else is only a theory which is built upon the raw existence
>> of observer-moments.
> [BM]
> All right. I guess you agree that this is compatible with the fact that
> such a theory, built upon the raw existence of OMs, could infer the
> existence of more primitive objects, could explain how the "raw existence
> of OM" emerges from those more primitive objects and explain also how the
> theory of those more primitive objects emerge from the (only apparently
> raw, now) observer moments. All this without being circular. OK?
>
Could you explain to us how it is necessary that sets of Observer
Moments must be "well founded" such that properties like "such a theory,
built upon the raw existence of OMs, could infer the existence of more
primitive objects" and "All this without being circular."?
Why do we insist on having an indivisible Atom from which All is
constructable? Is it not possible that the distinctions (read properties!)
between one OM and another are merely those that they do not have in common?
Instead of the idea of an Atom floating in the Void, let us consider the
idea of Indra's Net:
http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html
***
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL
NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT
STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING
JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN
DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS,
GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD.
IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK
CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE
REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY
THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING
ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE
THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA
FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977
***
I am suggesting that these "jewels" give us an excellent way to think of
OMs. If we are to allow for a value K {ranging from 0 to 1} to represent the
degree to which one "jewel" "reflects" or "is similar to" or "implies", it
seems that we get a very neat way to span a whole lot of logics and math
with a simple picture. And, to top it off, we have a way to deal with
infinite regress and circularity without paradox. (BTW, this is what
Non-Well founded set theory is trying to explain!)
Stephen
PS, for more info on Indra''s net see:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew25326.htm
and on its relation to NWF sets:
http://dialog.net:85/homepage/autobook.5/refautol.pdf
Received on Sun Jun 05 2005 - 11:46:06 PDT