Hi Godfrey, Bruno
The "I" that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and
coincides with the physical system that the "I" inhabits. Thus the world
(the slice of the plenitude that we can observe) is anthropically
constrained by the "I."
[GK]
So the "I" is (1) a logical system (2) a physical system inhabited (1)
and (3) the set of anthropic constraints which delimits
the whole of the (non-"I") universe (?) where (I am guessing) (1) and
(2) find themselves! Is this what you are saying?
[GL]
I am sorry I was sloppy in my explanation. Let me try to be clearer. "I"
is the kernel of consciousness. It does not include memories which are
different for everyone and change as a person ages. I agree with you
that since "I" is based on a logical system it must follow Goedel's
theorem, perhaps at the border between incompleteness and inconsistency.
It seems that is precisely what consciousness "feels" like.
I am not saying that "I" is a physical system or is the world. Rather
that the world that "I" perceive is anthropically constrained by the "I"
and that the physical laws have the same limitations as the "I"
including the incompleteness/inconsistency requirement.
[GK]
Hold on there! If all physics is reducible to "a logical system" why
would there need be physics at all ? Why would you have
to be the one answering Enstein's quandary? Wouldn't his "I", being the
same as yours be able to answer himself?
In other words: maybe your explanation of knowledge is incapable of
explaining... ignorance?
I think that a TOE would have to include an explanation of
consciousness. In explaining the world we'll have to explain ourselves.
[GL]
Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers differ
in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it does not exist
when observers operate according to different but entirely consistent
fundamental logics. In fact, such observers would have a lot of
difficulty communicating since their worlds would be different slices of
the plenitude.
[GK]
the "strangeness" of relativistic physics
is that observers can actually compare and agree on their observations
even when they have entirely different deployments
in their different frames of reference!
[GL]
Before relativity, one might have argued that different observers
experienced different laws of physics. For example, I might experience a
gravitational field while you may experience an acceleration. Relativity
is a set of far ranging laws that unified under the same umbrella what
were deemed smaller ranging laws experienced by different observers. I
am saying exactly the same thing. Different frames of reference will
generate different perceived laws. Since the frames of reference I am
discussing include logical systems, the perceived worlds will be different.
[GL]
> Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers
> differ in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it
> does not exist when observers operate according to different but
> entirely consistent fundamental logics. In fact, such observers
> would have a lot of difficulty communicating since their worlds
> would be different slices of the plenitude.
>
[BM]
I would say, almost like a physicalist, that "objective reality" is what
is common to all frame of reference. I would even say that "the physical
laws" are exactly what is true in all observer-moment, relative
state/worlds, etc.
[GL]
Einstein has demonstrated that under different state of motion and
acceleration the old objective reality breaks down and a new objective
reality must take its place. Objective reality depends on the range of
the laws. Newton's laws are not true in all frame of reference in
various kinds of motion, but Relativity provides unified laws that cover
all frames of reference that differ according to their motion and their
acceleration. QT/MWI offers a different kind of relativism. Shannon
offers yet another kind of relativism. Why not just go all the way - no
more objective reality. Each "I" has his own reality. If your accept
this as a law then we have objective reality. :-)
[BM]
I could challenge you for giving me two entirely consistent logics
having nothing in common, and sufficiently rich to keep natural numbers
(but perhaps you don't put weight on arithmetical truth, in which case I
could imagine some solution in a non comp framework)
[GL
I am not sure what you mean by your statement in parenthesis. Bruno, I
am not an expert in logic. Perhaps you can help. Is it possible that
"I" (and the anthropically derived world) may include all the (logical)
systems "I" can imagine, and therefore it would be impossible for "I" to
provide you with a system that "I" cannot imagine? So it is impossible
for us to see beyond our slice of the plenitude.
George
Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 15:30:12 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST