« Return to Thread: Comments on The Mathematical Universe
Re: Comments on The Mathematical Universe
by Colin Hales-2
::
Rate this Message:
RE: Gill Jannes -
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.0867v1.pdf
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. EXPERIENCE <IS> OBSERVATION. Literally!
(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 predict'.
(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)
and
(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 2 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.
cheers
colin hales.
[1] Hales, C. 'Dual Aspect Science', Journal of Consciousness Studies vol. 16, no. 2-3, 2009. 30-73.
ronaldheld wrote:
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
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. EXPERIENCE <IS> OBSERVATION. Literally!
(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 predict'.
(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)
and
(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 2 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.
cheers
colin hales.
[1] Hales, C. 'Dual Aspect Science', Journal of Consciousness Studies vol. 16, no. 2-3, 2009. 30-73.
ronaldheld wrote:
Arxiv.org:0904.0867v1 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 everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
JCS_DAS.pdf (1M) « Return to Thread: Comments on The Mathematical Universe
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
