Re: Belief-O-Matic

Well, I first took the test Saturday and posted the results to the list, but for some reason they never showed up. (Went through a moment of paranoia wondering if I had been moved to moderated status. Whew.) So I had to take the damn test again, and the results came out slightly different - I pretty much remembered my answers, but not the low/high priorities. So Buddhism and Hinduism got switched around this time. But my only official religious practice of recent years has been Zen Buddhist, which wasn't represented. I've always like Jainism, since I was in college studying Sanskrit. Anyway, here's the slightly revised list. I'm not much on rituals (except for the occasional goat sacrifice).

1.  Neo-Pagan (100%)
2.  Hinduism (95%)
3.  Mahayana Buddhism (94%)
4.  Jainism (86%)
5.  Unitarian Universalism (81%)
6.  New Age (79%)
7.  Sikhism (74%)
8.  New Thought (72%)
9.  Theravada Buddhism (71%)
10.  Reform Judaism (68%)
11.  Scientology (68%)
12.  Taoism (65%)
13.  Liberal Quakers (64%)
14.  Bahá'í Faith (57%)
15.  Orthodox Judaism (50%)
16.  Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (50%)
17.  Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (46%)
18.  Orthodox Quaker (43%)
19.  Secular Humanism (41%)
20.  Islam (40%)
21.  Nontheist (24%)
22.  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (20%)
23.  Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (20%)
24.  Seventh Day Adventist (17%)
25.  Eastern Orthodox (12%)
26.  Roman Catholic (12%)
27.  Jehovah's Witness (3%)

Kyle

> 6.  New Age (79%)

I haven't taken the test - is this a religion based on the worship of
Enya?

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Jon,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > 6.  New Age (79%)
>
> I haven't taken the test - is this a religion based on the worship of
> Enya?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

No, no. This reflects my belief that those who go to hell are fated to listen to Yanni throughout eternity.

So shape up!, :^D

Kyle

Hey,

BTW, what's the difference between 'New Age' and 'New Thought'?

I'm also curious to know what individual people answered to each question. But
scratch that thought...it might open up and make this thread either bloated
or contentious, or both.

At the risk of doing that anyway--my beliefs, as far as they could be put into
a nutshell:

Anything that people say is metaphysical I say is either non-existent, or a
misunderstanding of what will be eventually, if not already, be understood to
be physical, so I'm pretty much a materialist of the Democritus mold. In
other words, I'm a-priori against the dualistic categorization, that
Nietzsche so rightly points out was started by Plato, of the universe into
the 'true metaphysical reality' and the 'apparent' reality.

This Barbara Montero essay says a lot more about this:
http://barbara.antinomies.org/Publications/Chapter1

However I do think consciousness remains a great mystery, perhaps unsoluble by
science. In this I think I agree with David Chalmers, and against, although I
think he's brilliant, Daniel Dennett.

http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html

And there is no divine intelligence, certainly no God or evidence for one. The
universe self-organizes. And I see no reason to be a pan-theist of the
Spinoza mold: that's just muddying the waters.

I also think that 99% of the worlds ills and wrongs start out with 'My God
says this about your false God': translation--the death of religion will
coincide with the dawn of a new and heightened golden age of higher
consciousness and humanity and peace. And I have yet to see a compelling
religious argument that doesn't boil down to emotional manipulation, threats
of damnation, fear of death, or social pressure to conform. Or the aesthetic
desire to make the universe mush *smaller and cozier* than it really is.

My critique of the New Age stuff is the same as for religion: there's not
enough mystery in *either* view !!! Science cannot know all, and stops where
it does. Mystery should be mystery, and not fall prey to the 'grand unified
chakra theory', or whatever your India or far-east flavor of the month
happens to be. Just as one ought not say 'Goddidit' at every question mark.

But, go figure, I'm on the fence, leaning towards believing in, ghosts--
--probably the one area that I think may be 'real' that people who are likely
to believe in all sorts of 'out there' stuff also tend to believe in. Not
only have I had strange uunexplained experiences of things that I cannot but
describe as 'haunted', but so have many sober friends and relatives of mine,
sometimes in groups, which is harder to explain away (except if you believe
in mass hallucinatiions)

Best,
Aaron.

On Monday 05 July 2004 10:18 pm, Kyle Gann wrote:
> Well, I first took the test Saturday and posted the results to the list,
> but for some reason they never showed up. (Went through a moment of
> paranoia wondering if I had been moved to moderated status. Whew.) So I had
> to take the damn test again, and the results came out slightly different -
> I pretty much remembered my answers, but not the low/high priorities. So
> Buddhism and Hinduism got switched around this time. But my only official
> religious practice of recent years has been Zen Buddhist, which wasn't
> represented. I've always like Jainism, since I was in college studying
> Sanskrit. Anyway, here's the slightly revised list. I'm not much on rituals
> (except for the occasional goat sacrifice).
>
> 1.  Neo-Pagan (100%)
> 2.  Hinduism (95%)
> 3.  Mahayana Buddhism (94%)
> 4.  Jainism (86%)
> 5.  Unitarian Universalism (81%)
> 6.  New Age (79%)
> 7.  Sikhism (74%)
> 8.  New Thought (72%)
> 9.  Theravada Buddhism (71%)
> 10.  Reform Judaism (68%)
> 11.  Scientology (68%)
> 12.  Taoism (65%)
> 13.  Liberal Quakers (64%)
> 14.  Bahá'í Faith (57%)
> 15.  Orthodox Judaism (50%)
> 16.  Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (50%)
> 17.  Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (46%)
> 18.  Orthodox Quaker (43%)
> 19.  Secular Humanism (41%)
> 20.  Islam (40%)
> 21.  Nontheist (24%)
> 22.  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (20%)
> 23.  Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (20%)
> 24.  Seventh Day Adventist (17%)
> 25.  Eastern Orthodox (12%)
> 26.  Roman Catholic (12%)
> 27.  Jehovah's Witness (3%)
>
> Kyle
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Hi Jon

Actually the "new age" is not really a religion, and I know "new age" is a
pejoritve term in alot of circles, but as someone who has spent years
studying various forms of Buddhism as well as many other religions and
philosophies, including some included in the "new age" rubric, allow me make
a few observations by way of answering your question:

Most of the extant organized religions originated out of world views from at
least 2000 years ago. They contain within them all sorts of assumptions,
myths and symbols related to the times and cultures of their origins. Many
people today find it difficult or impossible to relate to many of these
remote aspects, while others attempt to give up being 21st century
westerners and morph themselves into 2000 year old Indians or Asians, or
Isrealites, for that matter.

Science has become a "religion" for many, replacing the traditional faiths.
Those that adhere to a scientific worldview do not think that they are
adopting a set of assumptions and mental filters like those adopted by
religious people. They think that science is objective, based on
experimentation, verifyability, etc, but the material scientific worldview
is really no different from any other mythology or belief system. All belief
systems allow you to selectivly filter perception based on rules about what
is "real" or not, and then interpret those perceptions in a way that allows
one to function in life (more or less). Those that claim that the scientific
worldview is not just another mythology usually point to the triumph of
technology as hard proof of its objective reality, but one might counter
that a shaman in a tribe could point to the continued survival and spiritual
cohesion of the life of his village as "proof" that his "technologies" work
perfectly well too.

Getting back to the "new age" philosophies and mythologies, the thing I
often think about them is that they are OUR mythologies, the archytypal
creations of our present culture, as opposed to, for example, the
mythologies of India 2000 years ago (in the case of Hinduism or Buddhism).

Take the UFO and "alien abduction" phenomena, which is a large component of
many "new age" philosophies. While researchers like Jacques Vallee have
shown that similar phenomena have existed in all cultures at all times,
clothed in whatever imagery was appropriate at the time, this phenomena has
become, in the last 50 years, a very powerful and potent force in our
culture, with a highly detailed "mythology". At the same time, this
phenomena is undeniably "real", (see Richard Dolan's "UFOs and the National
Security State" and the work of the Disclosure Project) although one thing
that the UFO phenomenal highlights is the slippery nature of the term
"real".

So, if it is true that there are other beings, entities and consciousnesses
interacting with humanity, both on the physical level as well as the mental
level (there is ample evidence of an interdimensional origin of much of this
phenomena), then our world view is in the slow and difficult process of
shifting to deal with this.

Another common "new age" theme is "channeling", or the receipt of
information from souces other than the conscious mind. Whether the
information is coming from other (non human) beings or our own subconscious,
it points to the existence of other levels of consciousness besides the
familiar ones of waking, sleeping, and dreaming, and the possiblity of
accessing concepts and information from these alternate sources. The
exploration of this is found in all previous religions, but there, again, it
is limited to the symbols and themes acceptable within those systems. While
"new age" approaches may embrace certain aspects of these ancient systems,
they are open to new information and new ways of looking at things and
being-in-the-world.

There is alot of kookiness in the new age movement, no disputing that, but
there is plenty of kookiness in all religions and philosophies, as well as
in science. That is not the point. The question is what, if anything, is of
value when you go beyond the bullshit.

To me, the best of the New Age material is channeled material by Jane
Roberts (the Seth books) Ken Carey (Starseed: the Third Millenium), A Course
in Miracles, The Ra Material. The recognition of the human energy field, and
technologies for working with it (again, not new: see yoga and Tantra - but
conceptions and technologies that we can more easily relate to) in the work
of Barbara Brennan and the artist Alex Grey. The UFO and alien phenomena: I
already mentioned the new classic "UFOs and the National Security State" by
Richard Dolan, as well as disclosureproject.org, and the works of Jacques
Vallee.

Anyway, thats enough babbling, but I just want to suggest that the "new age"
phenomena is not simply "Enya worship" ;-) Of course, all I may have
succeeded in doing is convincing you that I am a kook.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Szanto [mailto:JSZANTO@...]
> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 11:26 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Belief-O-Matic
>
>
> > 6.  New Age (79%)
>
> I haven't taken the test - is this a religion based on the worship of
> Enya?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

HI Aaron-

> Anything that people say is metaphysical I say is either
> non-existent, or a
> misunderstanding of what will be eventually, if not already, be
> understood to
> be physical, so I'm pretty much a materialist of the Democritus mold. In
> other words, I'm a-priori against the dualistic categorization, that
> Nietzsche so rightly points out was started by Plato, of the
> universe into
> the 'true metaphysical reality' and the 'apparent' reality.

The only thing we experience directly is our own awareness, and then
percepts. Percepts are colors, shapes, smells, emotions, concepts, etc.
Percepts must be interpreted before we can make sense of them, otherwise
instead of seeing a "table" all we will see is colors and shapes. So, any
conception of our "bodies", "brains" "matter" etc, are constructs and
interpretations, arbitrary although perhaps useful. I do not see how one
can be a "materialist", since "material" is itself a concept, an
interpretation, that we place upon percepts and use to organize them.
Meanwhile, awareness is directly experienced and undeniable. It seems to me
that awareness is the only thing we can "hang our hats on", so to speak.

> This Barbara Montero essay says a lot more about this:
> http://barbara.antinomies.org/Publications/Chapter1

This seems to me a good example of the kind of epistemologically naive
thinking that takes up alot of people's spare time. She thinks that what
needs to be defined is physicality, and asks whether physics can provide
this kind of clarification. All of this can only be even considered by first
completely ignoring the primacy of one's own consciousness and the
contingency of all mental constructs such as "physicality" on that
consciousness. Its not that "physicality" may not be a useful construct,
just that it is not going to elucidate anything deeper than the cultural
constructs from which it arose. If there is such a thing as "religion" or
"spirituality", it is preceisely that which attempts to dive deeper than
cultural constructs to reach any underlying reality, if there is one. What I
suggest is that the only thing that can be positied as such is awareness
itself.

> However I do think consciousness remains a great mystery, perhaps
> unsoluble by
> science. In this I think I agree with David Chalmers, and
> against, although I
> think he's brilliant, Daniel Dennett.
>
> http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html

Perhaps the greatest mystery of consciousness is how it is able to forget
itself and get lost in the thicket of its concept-constructs. I find that
the most sophisticated religious philosophies, like Buddhist Dzogchen, are
nothing more than calls to remember the primacy of awareness.

> And there is no divine intelligence, certainly no God or evidence
> for one. The
> universe self-organizes. And I see no reason to be a pan-theist of the
> Spinoza mold: that's just muddying the waters.

Awareness can posit a universe, but there is no need to posit any "divine
intelligence" beyond the awareness that already is what we are.

> I also think that 99% of the worlds ills and wrongs start out
> with 'My God
> says this about your false God': translation--the death of religion will
> coincide with the dawn of a new and heightened golden age of higher
> consciousness and humanity and peace. And I have yet to see a compelling
> religious argument that doesn't boil down to emotional
> manipulation, threats
> of damnation, fear of death, or social pressure to conform. Or
> the aesthetic
> desire to make the universe mush *smaller and cozier* than it really is.

I would say 100% of the world's ills start out with "I am a finite body
struggling for survival, resources are limited so I must get as much as I
can even if it means others don't get enough".

I like your "golden age of higher consciousness and humanity and peace". You
think this will happen when religion disappears, but materialism is at least
as responsible for violence and conflict as religion. Higher consciousness
really just means "consciousness remembering itself". It also means
realizing that the awareness focused as my perspective ("me"), and the
awareness focused as your perspective ("you") are not separate, and
certainly not legitimately in any kind of conflict.

> My critique of the New Age stuff is the same as for religion: there's not
> enough mystery in *either* view !!! Science cannot know all, and
> stops where
> it does. Mystery should be mystery, and not fall prey to the
> 'grand unified
> chakra theory', or whatever your India or far-east flavor of the month
> happens to be. Just as one ought not say 'Goddidit' at every
> question mark.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mystery"? To me, a mystery is something that
is glimpsed or half-guessed at without being seen clearly. Consciousness is
a "mystery" if you think >about< it, but if you simply abide in awareness,
there is no mystery, as the knower and the known are one and the same.

Dante

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

[major snip]

> Anyway, thats enough babbling, but I just want to suggest that
the "new age"
> phenomena is not simply "Enya worship" ;-) Of course, all I may have
> succeeded in doing is convincing you that I am a kook.

Hey, Dante, if you're a kook you're *my* kind of kook! I need to say
the following:

1. Thank you for an informative essay, well written considering it
was on the fly

2. Apologies if my flip remark came across as needing correction or
added dimension, because...

3. ... while I was not aware of all the parameters, I certainly was
aware of "New Age" religions/philosophies, and it was only the
silliness of the term being used in record and cd shops all around
the world that I was remarking on.

Besides, Enya was the love-child of Wayne Newton and Julie Newmar.

Cheers,
Jon

> The only thing we experience directly is our own awareness,
> and then percepts. Percepts are colors, shapes, smells,
> emotions, concepts, etc. Percepts must be interpreted
> before we can make sense of them, otherwise instead of
> seeing a "table" all we will see is colors and shapes. So,
> any conception of our "bodies", "brains" "matter" etc, are
> constructs and interpretations,

The difference here is rather artificial. Percepts are
interpretations too, of even lower-level sensory data,
which are in turn interpretations of (say) vibrations in
the cochlea. And interpreting a "table" is usually sub-
concious, just as interpreting "red" is usually subconcious.
And in either case one can consciously step in with a
little practice.

> arbitrary although perhaps useful.

If the interpretations are useful, they are not arbitrary.

> I do not see how one can be a "materialist",

The debate revolves around denying the existence of either
physical reality or mental interpretations (which we might
call "models").

One way of looking at it: Information is all there is.
Sometimes it admits to lossless modeling, and we say our
model is accurate to within the limits of experiment.
Other times, lossy compression is more useful, and we say
we are merely modeling an underlying physical reality.
Most of the time it's completely random, and we ignore
it completely.

> All of this can only be even considered by first
> completely ignoring the primacy of one's own consciousness
> and the contingency of all mental constructs such as
> "physicality" on that consciousness. Its not that
> "physicality" may not be a useful construct, just that
> it is not going to elucidate anything deeper than the
> cultural constructs from which it arose.

The old 'do you believe you will die?' question. Most
people do believe they'll die, and they go to the trouble
of writing wills, because they have a model that tells
them they're human, and that humans are mortal. In
short: models *can* provide information outside of the
context in which they arose.

>What I suggest is that the only thing that can be positied
>as such is awareness itself.

Awareness is vastly over-rated. It can be wonderful to
experience, but it isn't terribly important as far as the
ground rules of epistemology are concerned.

> Perhaps the greatest mystery of consciousness is how it is
> able to forget itself and get lost in the thicket of its
> concept-constructs. I find that the most sophisticated
> religious philosophies, like Buddhist Dzogchen, are nothing
> more than calls to remember the primacy of awareness.

And they're wonderful at that. Awareness is a boon for
self-management, but again, not terribly important in
epistemology. This is driven home in basic undergraduate
courses on epistemology, through which a majority of
students cannot stay awake.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "mystery"? To me, a mystery
> is something that is glimpsed or half-guessed at without
> being seen clearly. Consciousness is a "mystery" if you
> think >about< it, but if you simply abide in awareness,
> there is no mystery, as the knower and the known are one
> and the same.

Sounds like Eckhart Tolle.

Intelligence is always something of a mystery, otherwise
it wouldn't seem so intelligent. Consciousness enjoys no
such protection that I can see. Maybe it's just the
sensation of general-purpose neurons at work.

The "stream of consciousness" itself (just whatever is
going through your head; not awareness) is, in
behaviorist terms, merely the output of some internal
process attempting to reinforce itself by grabbing a
bigger megaphone -- sensory ports usually reserved for
all-important external stimuli.

-Carl

Hi Dante!
The thing here that i strongly agree with here is that early on, the prophets,
is the various religions that off shoot from abraham, were not thought to have
obtain their prophecies by not ignoring reason, but that reason was the base on
which these prophecies would take place.

Avicenna was quite influential being both a scientist and religious visionary
and had no conflict doing both. Pascal is a lesser way

That the body of knowledge and self awareness has progressed to such a
point that new visionary perspectives are necessitated seems inescapable. That
the wisdoms of different speculative traditions are now no longer isolated from
each other, also forces a reevaluation as to reconcile the truths of each.
including atheism :)

But i realize that Dante was not speaking out for reason (or against
either) but for using other parts and methods of the mind. Jung pointed out
that intuition or even emotion might actually involve more information
processing and utilizes more the brain than reason. Of course in the end Jung
is using reason to recognize its own limitation

Many of the most prominent religions of this country are more recent
"visions" (hundred of years old at most ) as opposed to the oldest ones. It is
why many of them came here. or outright forced to come here. Once here, new
ones sprouted up and continue to do so.

The greatest tragedy of waco was the threat to this type of activity (of
course guns had something to do with it also)

Dante Rosati wrote:

>
> Most of the extant organized religions originated out of world views from at
> least 2000 years ago.

> -- -Kraig Grady

North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

I found this quote of interest that i though other might wish to comment
on and relates to our discussion

from http://www.magma.ca/~mfonda/ch3.html

It is Descartes, Keller notes, who ultimately separated the unity of the
mind and body that was tenuously established by Augustine and Aquinas.
Descartes separated the world into two substances: res extensa and res
cogitans, the material body and the `thinking thing,' which is identified
with the soul and considered to be essentially rational. Keller believes
that through the identification of the thinking thing with the reflexive
self "we now encounter for the first time in [western] conceptual history
the fully substantial self--the self-objectified self, autonomous and so
fundamentally separated from everything, beginning with his own body." Yet
it became necessary to introduce God in order to connect the differing
moments of existence belonging to the same ego. Hence God is conceived of
as a third substance, the only one that truly can be absolutely
independent. Consequently, it is God who eventually became the means of
making the connection between mind and body. That is, it is only through a
patriarchal, transcendent, and matricidal god that we are permitted to
find this connection. The consequence of such a radical separation of the
mind and the body, coupled with a over-valuation of the spiritual aspect,
is that the body and those who represent it (women)
are vilified and abjected. Not only is there an exclusion of women from
the society of men, there also is a separation of the self (the spiritual)
from the self (the physical).

This final blow to the theological conception of self struck by Descartes
has since resulted in what can been considered the excessive rationalism
of western society. When the mind is considered to be the only true, pure
aspect of the human creature, the body is left at the wayside. It is this
self-objectified self, this obsessively rational agent is the mind that
ultimately influences the modern West's Weltanschauung and, in particular,
finds its way into its psychology. Keller's argument demonstrates the
depth and range of the feminist critique and implicates western psychology
as being steeped in inadequate phraseology.

>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

> Science has become a "religion" for many, replacing the traditional
faiths.
> Those that adhere to a scientific worldview do not think that they
are
> adopting a set of assumptions and mental filters like those adopted
by
> religious people. They think that science is objective, based on
> experimentation, verifyability, etc, but the material scientific
worldview
> is really no different from any other mythology or belief system.
All belief
> systems allow you to selectivly filter perception based on rules
about what
> is "real" or not, and then interpret those perceptions in a way
that allows
> one to function in life (more or less). Those that claim that the
scientific
> worldview is not just another mythology usually point to the
triumph of
> technology as hard proof of its objective reality, but one might
counter
> that a shaman in a tribe could point to the continued survival and
spiritual
> cohesion of the life of his village as "proof" that
his "technologies" work
> perfectly well too.

Science shouldn't exist as a separate system apart from other
knowledge. There is no sharp distinction where everyday human
knowledge like "if you throw a rock upwards it comes down" becomes
something like theoretical physics. There is no "insert scientific
mythologies here"-point.

Kalle

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...>
wrote:
>
> > Science has become a "religion" for many, replacing the
traditional
> faiths.
> > Those that adhere to a scientific worldview do not think that
they
> are
> > adopting a set of assumptions and mental filters like those
adopted
> by
> > religious people. They think that science is objective, based on
> > experimentation, verifyability, etc, but the material scientific
> worldview
> > is really no different from any other mythology or belief system.
> All belief
> > systems allow you to selectivly filter perception based on rules
> about what
> > is "real" or not, and then interpret those perceptions in a way
> that allows
> > one to function in life (more or less). Those that claim that the
> scientific
> > worldview is not just another mythology usually point to the
> triumph of
> > technology as hard proof of its objective reality, but one might
> counter
> > that a shaman in a tribe could point to the continued survival
and
> spiritual
> > cohesion of the life of his village as "proof" that
> his "technologies" work
> > perfectly well too.
>
> Science shouldn't exist as a separate system apart from other
> knowledge. There is no sharp distinction where everyday human
> knowledge like "if you throw a rock upwards it comes down" becomes
> something like theoretical physics. There is no "insert scientific
> mythologies here"-point.

In other words: all knowledge is one.

The myth of analysis

Kalle Aho wrote:

>
> Science shouldn't exist as a separate system apart from other
> knowledge. There is no sharp distinction where everyday human
> knowledge like "if you throw a rock upwards it comes down" becomes
> something like theoretical physics. There is no "insert scientific
> mythologies here"-point.
>
> Kalle
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 12:09 am, Dante Rosati wrote:

> Science has become a "religion" for many, replacing the traditional faiths.
> Those that adhere to a scientific worldview do not think that they are
> adopting a set of assumptions and mental filters like those adopted by
> religious people. They think that science is objective, based on
> experimentation, verifyability, etc, but the material scientific worldview
> is really no different from any other mythology or belief system.

Completely and utterly false. Name another worldview where the modus operandi
is to *reject* hypotheses in favor of another that, for now, reflects the
evidence. Name another worldview where people say 'That's what I think, now
let's see if it stands up to the *repeatable* and *independently verifiable*
tests'.

> All
> belief systems allow you to selectivly filter perception based on rules
> about what is "real" or not, and then interpret those perceptions in a way
> that allows one to function in life (more or less).

Less.

So, you think that it's just subjective that the earth goes round the sun, or
that the periodic table of the elements works as it does?

> Those that claim that
> the scientific worldview is not just another mythology usually point to the
> triumph of technology as hard proof of its objective reality, but one might
> counter that a shaman in a tribe could point to the continued survival and
> spiritual cohesion of the life of his village as "proof" that his
> "technologies" work perfectly well too.

'Spiritual cohesion' and building real spacecraft that get one to the moon or
Saturn are vastly different examples of the results of various, as you call
them, 'mythologies'. Only science stands the test of reality that allows us
to get to the moon, clone sheep, synthesize medicines, electrically power the
world, and yes, the dark side too (atom bombs).

Here's a simple test for you: get AIDS, and then choose between scientific
medicines developed to combat it, or some New Age idea, and observe how long
you survive.

> So, if it is true that there are other beings, entities and consciousnesses
> interacting with humanity, both on the physical level as well as the mental
> level (there is ample evidence of an interdimensional origin of much of
> this phenomena), then our world view is in the slow and difficult process
> of shifting to deal with this.

What you mean to say is ample 'belief' in this. Evidence?--not a shred of
evidence subject to the falsifiability principle.

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Kraig,

Can you clarify?

If you're saying what I think you are, you'll have to answer as to why it is
that we can use mathematics ( a form of analysis) to get a probe the size of
a kitchen sink (Cassini) to a planet (Saturn), billions of miles away from
home, sending back data and never-before-seen perspectives of it's
sattellites, etc.

Or, closer to home, how it is that you can use mathematics (a form of
analysis) to design JI scales that have certain consonance/dissonance
properties?

If not analysis, what was it you were doing when you constructed a lattice
based on certain symmetries (an analytic concept) to come up with Centaur, or
what was Erv doing when he constructed his CPS, etc.?

Pre-emptive counter answer: don't say creativity doesn't also involve analysis
(i.e. reflective feedback based on structural concerns). It would be false !!

Best,
Aaron.

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 03:59 am, kraig grady wrote:
> The myth of analysis
>
> Kalle Aho wrote:
> > Science shouldn't exist as a separate system apart from other
> > knowledge. There is no sharp distinction where everyday human
> > knowledge like "if you throw a rock upwards it comes down" becomes
> > something like theoretical physics. There is no "insert scientific
> > mythologies here"-point.
> >
> > Kalle

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Hi Jon-

and it was only the
> silliness of the term being used in record and cd shops all around
> the world that I was remarking on.

Aint it the truth: what is "new age music" supposed to be, anyway? If it's
supposed to mean spiritual music, all great music is already as spiritual as
you can get, and art that deliberately tries to be "spiritual" just ends up
being bad art. There also seems to be a conflation of new age and world
music, I suppose following the theory that other cultures are more spiritual
than our own, especially tribal cultures.

Dante

Hi Carl-

> The difference here is rather artificial. Percepts are
> interpretations too, of even lower-level sensory data,
> which are in turn interpretations of (say) vibrations in
> the cochlea. And interpreting a "table" is usually sub-
> concious, just as interpreting "red" is usually subconcious.
> And in either case one can consciously step in with a
> little practice.

I don't think a percept is an interpretation until you label it or connect
it conceptually to other percepts. Percepts are simply contents of
consciousness: colors etc. We interpret a "table" subconciously becuase we
are conditioned from an early age to do so. In a culture that does not have
a concept for "table", all that will be interpretated is four sticks with
some kind of roof over them. In a hypothetical consciousness that does not
have a concept of "external objects", all that will be interpreted is
smudges of colors and lines (assuming that the concepts of "color" and
"line" exist in this consciousness)

Awareness is a boon for
> self-management, but again, not terribly important in
> epistemology. This is driven home in basic undergraduate
> courses on epistemology, through which a majority of
> students cannot stay awake.

Thats perfect: the primacy of awareness is denied and then the students fall
asleep! :-)

So what is important in "undergraduate courses in episemology", if not the
awareness that is taking the course in the first place?

Dante

Hi Aaron:

> Completely and utterly false. Name another worldview where the
> modus operandi
> is to *reject* hypotheses in favor of another that, for now, reflects the
> evidence. Name another worldview where people say 'That's what I
> think, now
> let's see if it stands up to the *repeatable* and *independently
> verifiable*
> tests'.

Thats the point: science is supposed to be a method, not a worldview.
So-called "scientific materialism" >is< a worldview, in that is denies the
reality of anything that cannot be physically measured, or considered as an
epiphenomena of physicality.

> So, you think that it's just subjective that the earth goes round
> the sun, or
> that the periodic table of the elements works as it does?

In my direct experience, the sun "rises" in the east and "sets" in the west.
I am aware of a story about how the earth goes around the sun, but that is
not perceived directly by me. If I went in a space ship and hovered over the
solar system and perceived the earth going around the sun, then it would be
a direct perception, but I haven't experienced this.

> 'Spiritual cohesion' and building real spacecraft that get one to
> the moon or
> Saturn are vastly different examples of the results of various,
> as you call
> them, 'mythologies'. Only science stands the test of reality that
> allows us
> to get to the moon, clone sheep, synthesize medicines,
> electrically power the
> world, and yes, the dark side too (atom bombs).

This statement is based on your value judgment that getting a spacecraft to
Saturn is more "real" or "important" than the spiritual cohension of a
social group. Not everyone may agree.

> Here's a simple test for you: get AIDS, and then choose between
> scientific
> medicines developed to combat it, or some New Age idea, and
> observe how long
> you survive.

Thats actually a hilarious example, since there is evidence that overuse of
antibiotics to combat STDs in the San Franciso and NY gay communities may be
responsible for the weakening of the immune systems of many members of those
communities, allowing the appearance of this condition in the first place.
Not to mention the opinion of some researchers (http://www.duesberg.com/)
that AIDS is not caused by HIV anyway. There are at least as many long term
survivors that manage their condition with diet, herbs, homeopathy, and
other "new age" ideas as those that dose themselves with highly toxic
chemical cocktails.

> > So, if it is true that there are other beings, entities and
> consciousnesses
> > interacting with humanity, both on the physical level as well
> as the mental
> > level (there is ample evidence of an interdimensional origin of much of
> > this phenomena), then our world view is in the slow and
> difficult process
> > of shifting to deal with this.
>
> What you mean to say is ample 'belief' in this. Evidence?--not a shred of
> evidence subject to the falsifiability principle.

Allright: let me clarify: "there is ample evidence that >suggests< an
interdimensional origin".

Speaking of the "falsifiability principle", this is interesting:

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2

Dante

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> Kraig,
>
> Can you clarify?
>
> If you're saying what I think you are, you'll have to answer as to why it is
> that we can use mathematics ( a form of analysis) to get a probe the size of
> a kitchen sink (Cassini) to a planet (Saturn), billions of miles away from
> home, sending back data and never-before-seen perspectives of it's
> sattellites, etc.

there is a difference between science and technology
that technology can do things is no reason to believe that its practice can
represent reality.
Which is always the implication.
This same example you use above if you remember , jeopardized a nuclear disaster
if something would have gone wrong , which can and does happen, not predicable by
numbers.

In the end, a belief in science will send up another load of plutonium and risk
killing millions.

I bet we can apply this same type of thinking to creating works of art.
If so JPL would be producing magnum opuses ( opui?) or any of the other
'universities.
This knowledge is applicable in only very limited circumstances, yet it implies
that it can represent reality.
It also makes claim to having 'objective' perspective.
At a certain point, even though certain experiments are repeatable, doesn't mean
that one is not seeing the results of artifacts of the mind or of numbers or the
combination of the two.

>
>
> Or, closer to home, how it is that you can use mathematics (a form of
> analysis) to design JI scales that have certain consonance/dissonance
> properties?

The consonance/dissonance question is a fine example of the failure of
mathematics to represent the reality of the subject . They all are lacking
including my own ( which does incorporate variables others would rather ignore).
The belief in science causes just about every one to come up with one. They are
all useless. A C major chord in F# major is dissonant

>
> If not analysis, what was it you were doing when you constructed a lattice
> based on certain symmetries (an analytic concept) to come up with Centaur, or
> what was Erv doing when he constructed his CPS, etc.?

These reflect no reality beyond itself. I use tools because i believe they are
useful up to a point. In the end the music that one produces will have properties
and expressions that cannot be predicted by there use except in a very limited
way. I guess one could train oneself to hear every single not as to how it
appears on a lattice, abut what would be accomplished.
To make music one has to have faith in also something else to make it more
than what we put into it. We have to hope that it blessed by something, if only
coincidence.

>
> Pre-emptive counter answer: don't say creativity doesn't also involve analysis
> (i.e. reflective feedback based on structural concerns). It would be false !!

Quite the contrary. I realized long time ago that that the part of myself that
creates is different than the one that uses analysis. When i have attempted to
use the latter, the result is dismal. you can see the result of such an approach
in academia. stillborn children.

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

It does appear that such technologies are more developed in many of them

Dante Rosati wrote:

> I suppose following the theory that other cultures are more spiritual
> than our own, especially tribal cultures.
>
> Dante
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> BTW, what's the difference between 'New Age' and 'New Thought'?
>
> I'm also curious to know what individual people answered to each
question. But
> scratch that thought...it might open up and make this thread either
bloated
> or contentious, or both.
>
> At the risk of doing that anyway--my beliefs, as far as they could
be put into
> a nutshell:
>
> Anything that people say is metaphysical I say is either non-
existent, or a
> misunderstanding of what will be eventually, if not already, be
understood to
> be physical, so I'm pretty much a materialist of the Democritus
mold.

This pretty much described me until some of the classes and labs I
had in Quantum Mechanics. We have been banished from the 'realist'
paradise, forever, in a certain sense.

> In
> other words, I'm a-priori against the dualistic categorization,
that
> Nietzsche so rightly points out was started by Plato, of the
universe into
> the 'true metaphysical reality' and the 'apparent' reality.

An interesting moment in Brian Greene's _The Fabric of the Cosmos_
turns Plato's analogy around, and suggests that, if we
are "holograms" in a sense, our true reality may reside on a surface,
much like Plato's shadows did.

That probably didn't make much sense to you, but I highly recommend
the book, especially because it might clear up what I said above,
about Quantum Mechanics.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

> In a hypothetical consciousness that does not
> have a concept of "external objects",

Very hypothetical . . .

> all that will be interpreted is
> smudges of colors and lines (assuming that the concepts of "color"
and
> "line" exist in this consciousness)

Maybe this is an early state of infant consciousness. Maybe the human
brain is hard-wired to then attempt to connect these percepts until a
consistent map of "external objects" can be put together. For example
the toy hanging from the top of the crib, the mother, the pet dog.
Maybe if the human brain didn't do this, the human being would be
unable to survive and eventually reproduce, because some of
these "external objects" would prevent it from doing so. Could you
consider it?

> Not to mention the opinion of some researchers
> (http://www.duesberg.com/) that AIDS is not
> caused by HIV anyway.

It's a duesy, alright.

> There are at least as many long ter
> survivors that manage their condition with diet,
> herbs, homeopathy, and other "new age" ideas as
> those that dose themselves with highly toxic
> chemical cocktails.

Diet is of primary importance; nobody's arguing that.
Herbs are drugs, and potentially toxic as well.
Modern AIDS drugs are usually well tolerated and are
hardly "highly toxic". Maybe you're thinking of
chemotherapy.

> Speaking of the "falsifiability principle", this is
> interesting:
>
> http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2

Falsifiability is still a good thing, that scams like
homeopathy could stand to visit with a bit more often.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
>
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > Kraig,
> >
> > Can you clarify?
> >
> > If you're saying what I think you are, you'll have to answer as
to why it is
> > that we can use mathematics ( a form of analysis) to get a probe
the size of
> > a kitchen sink (Cassini) to a planet (Saturn), billions of miles
away from
> > home, sending back data and never-before-seen perspectives of it's
> > sattellites, etc.
>
> there is a difference between science and technology
> that technology can do things is no reason to believe that its
practice can
> represent reality.
> Which is always the implication.
> This same example you use above if you remember , jeopardized a
nuclear disaster

I don't remember. Can you remind me?

> if something would have gone wrong , which can and does happen, not
predicable by
> numbers.
>
> In the end, a belief in science will send up another load of
plutonium and risk
> killing millions.

Killing millions? PLease clarify what you're referring to, because I
don't know what it is.

> Quite the contrary. I realized long time ago that that the part of
myself that
> creates is different than the one that uses analysis.

Me too.

> When i have attempted to
> use the latter, the result is dismal.

Me too!

> you can see the result of such an approach
> in academia. stillborn children.

I don't know much about academia, but I could see that.

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 12:46 pm, Dante Rosati wrote:
> Hi Aaron:
> > Completely and utterly false. Name another worldview where the
> > modus operandi
> > is to *reject* hypotheses in favor of another that, for now, reflects the
> > evidence. Name another worldview where people say 'That's what I
> > think, now
> > let's see if it stands up to the *repeatable* and *independently
> > verifiable*
> > tests'.
>
> Thats the point: science is supposed to be a method, not a worldview.
> So-called "scientific materialism" >is< a worldview, in that is denies the
> reality of anything that cannot be physically measured, or considered as an
> epiphenomena of physicality.

What you ask is impossible: science also is a sort of worldview: each
experience adds to the a-priori assumptions of the next experiment.
Ocassionally, a paradigm shift (Quantum physics) forces a new model to
override the old assumptions (Classical physics). It is as it ever was, and
is completely unavoidable. How could it be avoidable?

> > So, you think that it's just subjective that the earth goes round
> > the sun, or
> > that the periodic table of the elements works as it does?
>
> In my direct experience, the sun "rises" in the east and "sets" in the
> west. I am aware of a story about how the earth goes around the sun, but
> that is not perceived directly by me. If I went in a space ship and hovered
> over the solar system and perceived the earth going around the sun, then it
> would be a direct perception, but I haven't experienced this.

Direct experience is not all the modern mind uses to access reality. We also
use experiment, and trust the common modern paradigm somewhat, and evaluate
reality based on that as much as anything.

I have no problem re-orienting my perception of the sun to account for the
reality that is the solar system. So I don't question Copernicus because it's
not in my most basic perception to see the solar system model. Nor do I
question the existence of atoms. There is plenty of evidence that they are
real, indirectly (like air pressure, wind, and steam)

Also, when a model works to make predictions 100% accurately, it is foolish to
think that it somehow is not reflected in 'reality'.

> > 'Spiritual cohesion' and building real spacecraft that get one to
> > the moon or
> > Saturn are vastly different examples of the results of various,
> > as you call
> > them, 'mythologies'. Only science stands the test of reality that
> > allows us
> > to get to the moon, clone sheep, synthesize medicines,
> > electrically power the
> > world, and yes, the dark side too (atom bombs).
>
> This statement is based on your value judgment that getting a spacecraft to
> Saturn is more "real" or "important" than the spiritual cohension of a
> social group. Not everyone may agree.

Not at all: It is a response to the philophical relativism which states that
scientific technology is not proof of science's efficacy.

I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual cohesion, so I'll not comment about
that ;)

> > Here's a simple test for you: get AIDS, and then choose between
> > scientific
> > medicines developed to combat it, or some New Age idea, and
> > observe how long
> > you survive.
>
> Thats actually a hilarious example, since there is evidence that overuse of
> antibiotics to combat STDs in the San Franciso and NY gay communities may
> be responsible for the weakening of the immune systems of many members of
> those communities, allowing the appearance of this condition in the first
> place.

Overuse of Antibiotics, then has been scientifically shown to be ineffective.
Now you are using the terms and methodologies of science to show the limits
of science ('evidence', and 'immune system'). I'm confused!

If you rejected science you would say instead that the 'cosmic life force' has
been drained, or something (I don't know what)

> Not to mention the opinion of some researchers
> (http://www.duesberg.com/) that AIDS is not caused by HIV anyway.

> There are
> at least as many long term survivors that manage their condition with diet,
> herbs, homeopathy, and other "new age" ideas as those that dose themselves
> with highly toxic chemical cocktails.

Interesting. Want to give me a link or reference to a scientific study which
compares the population of AIDS patients who are managing their condition
with modern medicine versus a control group of alternative medicine people?

Anyway, I just want to say that I'm a believer in nutritional and herbal
remedies: they worked on a case of Carpal Tunnel I had. I think they are
scientifically sound, as well as naturally groovy. ;)

In any event the method of comparing two populations is a scientific one, so I
don't know, again, what side you are one.

> > > So, if it is true that there are other beings, entities and
> >
> > consciousnesses
> >
> > > interacting with humanity, both on the physical level as well
> >
> > as the mental
> >
> > > level (there is ample evidence of an interdimensional origin of much of
> > > this phenomena), then our world view is in the slow and
> >
> > difficult process
> >
> > > of shifting to deal with this.
> >
> > What you mean to say is ample 'belief' in this. Evidence?--not a shred of
> > evidence subject to the falsifiability principle.
>
> Allright: let me clarify: "there is ample evidence that >suggests< an
> interdimensional origin".
>
> Speaking of the "falsifiability principle", this is interesting:
>
> http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2

Good....there are limits to what science can study, we agree on this.
'Interdimensional Origins' and other such stuff is speculative, and outside
the realm of the directly perceivable, etc.

Therefore, let's agree to say thiings about it like--'I believe', or 'it's
intriguing to think about that there might be....' but not 'There is this X,
and it is the True state of things'

Agreed?

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Hi Carl,

> Awareness is vastly over-rated. It can be wonderful to
> experience, but it isn't terribly important as far as the
> ground rules of epistemology are concerned.

I think here you are talking about awareness in the sense of
heightened consiousness are you not? Maybe self-awareness
or possibly awareness in some more general sense.

The philosophers generally mean just awareness of anything
at all. Something much more ordinary and
every day. Without it you don't see or hear or
touch or anything.

> Intelligence is always something of a mystery, otherwise
> it wouldn't seem so intelligent. Consciousness enjoys no
> such protection that I can see. Maybe it's just the
> sensation of general-purpose neurons at work.

> The "stream of consciousness" itself (just whatever is
> going through your head; not awareness) is, in
> behaviorist terms, merely the output of some internal
> process attempting to reinforce itself by grabbing a
> bigger megaphone -- sensory ports usually reserved for
> all-important external stimuli.

Yes - but that is a philosophical point of view.
How could you prove that on the basis of experiment?

I mean how could you prove that those thoughts themselves
are all there is to mind, and that that they
are only physical processes? That awareness
itself in the direct sense of being aware
of anything at all is no more than a physical
process.

I'm not saying that it is wrong, as it is
a respected point of view and if a trained
philosopher puts it forward then it is
very hard to aargue against it. But if
a scientist puts it forward, it is equally
hard to argue against, but then it is
often because he doesn't even recognise
it as a philosohical view. That's
not quite the same thing!

It is rather like trying to put forward
a scientific theory with no training in science.
Training in science doesn't necessarily guarantee
that one will have a good understanding of how
philosophy works - there is no reason why it should!
As it happens I got trained in both,
with undergraduate degrees separately
in both Maths and Philosophy so perhaps
I can bring in a point of view that can
see both sides more easily than most.

To see that it is philosophical in nature,
think, how could you prove that you have a body
even, and that this world exists,
by experiment? What experiment could one
do and then as a result of the experiment
say - therefore this world exists and
my body exists (and it isn't for instance
a particularly vivid and reasonably coherent
dream).

The scientist has no tools he can bring
to bear on that, only emotional ones to
say that it seems an absurd idea.
Okay fine, but that doesn't really
answer the question directly.

His experiments are within the
supposed dream so can't show anything
one way or the other. Philosophers
will be more at home and will be
able to argue back and forth endlessly
and indeed have for centuries.

There are many other views in between
to do with how mind and matter relate to
each other and how minds relate to each
other mediated by the world in one
way or another.

Just as Maths is based on a different
mode of reasoning that doesn't rely on
experiment, philosophy is even more so
- everything is up for discussion in philosophy
e.g. philosophy of maths can ask what the
numbers are, something you can never prove
mathematically one way or another.

It isn't quite such a very strong argument
to suggest that scientific reductionism
is a kind of minimalist extension of science
into philosophy. One can perhaps see that
even as a scientist as it assumes
the need for much new science not yet developed.
It requires many assumptions about what
thoughts are, about how they arise
from matter, about how the mind works,
many things. There is no real science of
mind yet in this sense, scientists agree
I think that their understanding of mind
is really not so very extensive yet
- and the scientists just
wave their hands and say - one
day maybe in the 22nd century or
whatever there will be one :-)>
That's not very convincing if you aren't
yet particularly disposed to accept that
point of view.

The mind only approach is even more minimalist
than the scientific / reductionist one.
It doesn't assume even that there is
an external world, just minds and their
interconnections. So if you want the
elegance of assuming as little as possible
you should go for that one instead :-).
Occam's razor would surely suggest, get
rid of the external world rather than minds,
as a far more complex postulate...
:-).

Even in science pursued at its most experimental
where mind seems of little relevance,
this thing pops up in Quantum
Mechanics, in the attempts to explain what
happens when an observation occurs.
The observation causes the collapse of
the wave function. The observation there
perhaps is mind, and the wave function
(whether before or after collapse might
depend on ones point of view) the
material world.

So does the observation
depend on the wave function and arise out of it
- or does the wave function depend on the
observation and only exist because of the
observation - or are both somehow related
and co-existent?

Is that just a trivial point that will
one day get cleared away with new theories
some kind of unified theory of gravity, matter and mind
perhaps - or is it perhaps pointing to something
more fundamental that can't be
patched up from within the resources
of science itself?

This is just by way of a few thoughts to get one
thinking that perhaps there may be more
than one way to extend science into
the realm of philsophy, and that to
ascribe to scientific reductionism
as many scientists do is actually
to take a philosophical position
that is based on many assumptions.
I think it is assumption based
as much so as any other philosophical
position - not more so probably, but
certainly not less so either.

Robert

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 02:37 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > Kraig,
> >
> > Can you clarify?
> >
> > If you're saying what I think you are, you'll have to answer as to why it
> > is that we can use mathematics ( a form of analysis) to get a probe the
> > size of a kitchen sink (Cassini) to a planet (Saturn), billions of miles
> > away from home, sending back data and never-before-seen perspectives of
> > it's sattellites, etc.
>
> there is a difference between science and technology
> that technology can do things is no reason to believe that its practice can
> represent reality.
> Which is always the implication.

I'm curious what you think it *does* represent, if not humanity's
understanding and manipulation of nature?

I assume that to manipulate nature, one must *understand* it. You claim that
one can manipulate nature *without* understanding. I claim that that
statement is self-contradictory.

Be careful and know what I mean: I make a distinction between 'use' and
'manipulate'. 'Use' would be to harnass a force without neccessarily
understanding it. 'Manipulate' would mean to study, predict, and then harnass
a natural force or phenomenon (say for example, nuclear energy, or
superconducting electromagnetic trains)

> This same example you use above if you remember , jeopardized a nuclear
> disaster if something would have gone wrong , which can and does happen,
> not predicable by numbers.
>
> In the end, a belief in science will send up another load of plutonium and
> risk killing millions.

What does the potential for evil or harm of a system have to do with it's
truth, or ability to model 'reality'? That's a red herring.

More later.....;)

-Aaron

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Can you define what is physical and what is not?
Are not all concepts including metaphysical ones, the artifacts of matter

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
> >
> > Anything that people say is metaphysical I say is either non-
> existent, or a
> > misunderstanding of what will be eventually, if not already, be
> understood to
> > be physical, so I'm pretty much a materialist of the Democritus
> mold.
>
> This pretty much described me until some of the classes and labs I
> had in Quantum Mechanics. We have been banished from the 'realist'
> paradise, forever, in a certain sense.
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

I'm not sure I understand your questions . . . But to clarify what I
wrote . . .

There are certain precise definitions of realism that one can come up
with.

Some of them, including Einstein's, end up making predictions which
are falsified by experiment. Quantum mechanics makes the correct
predictions, but without a satisfying 'explanation'.

The validity of these conceptions of realism were considered
purely "metaphysical", with no possible way of experimentally testing
them, for hundreds of years.

Now that experimental tests have arisen, the dividing line between
science and philosophy has developed a big new gray area, and it's a
very exciting area for a lot of researchers from both disciplines.

I have numerous books on the subject. My latest, which aims to tease
out precisely which versions of "realism" run afoul of recent
experiments, and which do not, is Tim Maudlin's _Quantum Non-locality
and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics_

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0631232214/wwwlink-software-
21/026-0713225-2385206

I haven't begun reading it yet, but I took a quick skim . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> Can you define what is physical and what is not?
> Are not all concepts including metaphysical ones, the artifacts of
matter
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Anything that people say is metaphysical I say is either non-
> > existent, or a
> > > misunderstanding of what will be eventually, if not already, be
> > understood to
> > > be physical, so I'm pretty much a materialist of the Democritus
> > mold.
> >
> > This pretty much described me until some of the classes and labs I
> > had in Quantum Mechanics. We have been banished from the 'realist'
> > paradise, forever, in a certain sense.
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Arron!
I think this whole thread started with putting the term 'Freethinker' on what
you believe implying that the rest of us are not . Up to this point no one seem
to be getting out of shape.

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Paul:

> Maybe this is an early state of infant consciousness. Maybe the human
> brain is hard-wired to then attempt to connect these percepts until a
> consistent map of "external objects" can be put together. For example
> the toy hanging from the top of the crib, the mother, the pet dog.
> Maybe if the human brain didn't do this, the human being would be
> unable to survive and eventually reproduce, because some of
> these "external objects" would prevent it from doing so. Could you
> consider it?

sounds exactly right to me. There still has to be an awareness >of< percepts
before they can be connected and interpreted. Thus awareness itself preceeds
awareness-of-percepts as well as maps built from percepts. Maps change over
time, from culture to culture, even from day to day - awareness, because it
is not a "thing" or "substance" is perhaps unchanging (as far as I can
tell).
Dante

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> I'm curious what you think it *does* represent, if not humanity's
> understanding and manipulation of nature?

they are tools like hammers. I don't believe in my hammer beyond driving in
nails

>
> I assume that to manipulate nature, one must *understand* it.

The effect of pollution by manipulation shows that one does not need to
understand very much to apply a narrow focus of attributes of matter

> You claim that
> one can manipulate nature *without* understanding. I claim that that
> statement is self-contradictory.

the above might imply the opposite . What in our world points to science
understanding the total effect of anything. weapons are a prime example of a
lack of understanding of much besides a few features of something that comes out
within a narrow range of responses that we find useful.

> Be careful and know what I mean: I make a distinction between 'use' and
> 'manipulate'. 'Use' would be to harnass a force without neccessarily
> understanding it. 'Manipulate' would mean to study, predict, and then harnass
> a natural force or phenomenon (say for example, nuclear energy, or
> superconducting electromagnetic trains)

I am not sure that we can tell the difference , until it too late

>
> > This same example you use above if you remember , jeopardized a nuclear
> > disaster if something would have gone wrong , which can and does happen,
> > not predicable by numbers.
> >
> > In the end, a belief in science will send up another load of plutonium and
> > risk killing millions.
>
> What does the potential for evil or harm of a system have to do with it's
> truth, or ability to model 'reality'? That's a red herring.

obviously this knowledge has not made them more aware of anything.

We can go to saturn and take pictures but outside of curiosity, it might be
nothing more than futile useless, and escapist venture.
It might be that 'knowledge' has become a kind of consumerist commodity. and
treats it with the same endless appetite of acquiring 'things' we really don't
need. Science is incapable of asking these questions about it self. It is our
expansion of our ability to make tools and nothing else.
It is quite possible that the same phenomenon can be explained in more than
one fashion. Some are less useful when making tools hence they are discarded.

>
>
> More later.....;)
>
> -Aaron
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 11:09 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > I'm curious what you think it *does* represent, if not humanity's
> > understanding and manipulation of nature?
>
> they are tools like hammers. I don't believe in my hammer beyond driving in
> nails

Right, but you believe the hammer is good for driving in nails, no? There are
some who seem to question the very validity of science and technology at all,
calling it a mythology.

Is a hammer driving a nail a 'myth'?

> > I assume that to manipulate nature, one must *understand* it.
>
> The effect of pollution by manipulation shows that one does not need to
> understand very much to apply a narrow focus of attributes of matter

Pollution is a side-effect, no? Besides, wisdom and knowledge are two
different things. I would say one could be a very knowledgeable destructive
psychopath....

Humanity learns all the time through iterative behavior. We need energy. We
make pollution. So we seek cleaner energy. Etc, etc.

> > You claim that
> > one can manipulate nature *without* understanding. I claim that that
> > statement is self-contradictory.
>
> the above might imply the opposite . What in our world points to science
> understanding the total effect of anything. weapons are a prime example of
> a lack of understanding of much besides a few features of something that
> comes out within a narrow range of responses that we find useful.

I was talking about understanding. I never once mentioned 'total
understanding' I don't think knowledge of that sort is possible by any means,
scientific or otherwise.

I think we are ike dogs trying to understand an automobile engine unltimately.
The universe is always way ahead of us.

> > Be careful and know what I mean: I make a distinction between 'use' and
> > 'manipulate'. 'Use' would be to harnass a force without neccessarily
> > understanding it. 'Manipulate' would mean to study, predict, and then
> > harnass a natural force or phenomenon (say for example, nuclear energy,
> > or superconducting electromagnetic trains)
>
> I am not sure that we can tell the difference , until it too late
>

That may be!

> > > This same example you use above if you remember , jeopardized a nuclear
> > > disaster if something would have gone wrong , which can and does
> > > happen, not predicable by numbers.
> > >
> > > In the end, a belief in science will send up another load of plutonium
> > > and risk killing millions.
> >
> > What does the potential for evil or harm of a system have to do with it's
> > truth, or ability to model 'reality'? That's a red herring.
>
> obviously this knowledge has not made them more aware of anything.

Well, like I said, I making a distinction here between 'wisdom' and
'knowledge'.

> We can go to saturn and take pictures but outside of curiosity, it might be
> nothing more than futile useless, and escapist venture.

Like art and music? I consider them 'useless' and 'escapist', but at the same
time the most profound activity possible.....

Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> > Awareness is vastly over-rated. It can be wonderful to
> > experience, but it isn't terribly important as far as the
> > ground rules of epistemology are concerned.
>
> I think here you are talking about awareness in the sense
> of heightened consiousness are you not?

Yes, I think so.

> The philosophers generally mean just awareness of anything
> at all. Something much more ordinary and every day. Without
> it you don't see or hear or touch or anything.

Yes, but this still isn't terribly important for epistemology.
Rocks may not be "aware", but they still process
information -- they erode, chip, fall, crack, etc. Things
that don't process information do not exist in the universe.

> > Intelligence is always something of a mystery, otherwise
> > it wouldn't seem so intelligent. Consciousness enjoys no
> > such protection that I can see. Maybe it's just the
> > sensation of general-purpose neurons at work.
>
> > The "stream of consciousness" itself (just whatever is
> > going through your head; not awareness) is, in
> > behaviorist terms, merely the output of some internal
> > process attempting to reinforce itself by grabbing a
> > bigger megaphone -- sensory ports usually reserved for
> > all-important external stimuli.
>
> Yes - but that is a philosophical point of view.
> How could you prove that on the basis of experiment?

The behaviorist explanation of the stream-of-consciousness?
It could concievably be falsified with brain imaging
experiments in the future.

> I mean how could you prove that those thoughts themselves
> are all there is to mind, and that that they
> are only physical processes? That awareness
> itself in the direct sense of being aware
> of anything at all is no more than a physical
> process.

Not sure what you're asking. You'll probably have to
define "physical process".

> To see that it is philosophical in nature,
> think, how could you prove that you have a body
> even, and that this world exists,
> by experiment? What experiment could one
> do and then as a result of the experiment
> say - therefore this world exists and
> my body exists (and it isn't for instance
> a particularly vivid and reasonably coherent
> dream).

What I call the world is just a stream of information.
Actually, as I discussed, it is more than that. It is
a model based on that stream of information. I don't
know if I can prove the world will continue to exist
when I die, but I can give you a good reason why I
think it will. Because I've seen other people die and
my model is a lot simpler if I don't assume I'm exactly
like them except that only my death causes the end of
the world.

> The scientist has no tools he can bring
> to bear on that, only emotional ones to
> say that it seems an absurd idea.
> Okay fine, but that doesn't really
> answer the question directly.

You are perhaps not familiar with the work on "induction"
by Ray Solomonoff, and the subsequent work of Schmidhuber
and Hutter?

> His experiments are within the
> supposed dream so can't show anything
> one way or the other.

That's the tricky bit, but I'm claiming models *can*
do this. For example, physicists like Tegmark have
suggested that the existence of parallel universes
follows from anthropic reasoning alone...

> Just as Maths is based on a different
> mode of reasoning that doesn't rely on
> experiment,

Math does employ experiment, and Science
does use pure reasoning. And both seem to
yield to the sort of automated Occam's razor
schemes put forth by Solomonoff et al. In
the end, the universe doesn't recognize the
boundaries of the academic disciplines.

> It isn't quite such a very strong argument
> to suggest that scientific reductionism
> is a kind of minimalist extension of science
> into philosophy. One can perhaps see that
> even as a scientist as it assumes
> the need for much new science not yet developed.
> It requires many assumptions about what
> thoughts are, about how they arise
> from matter, about how the mind works,
> many things. There is no real science of
> mind yet in this sense, scientists agree
> I think that their understanding of mind
> is really not so very extensive yet
> - and the scientists just
> wave their hands and say - one
> day maybe in the 22nd century or
> whatever there will be one :-)>

There's a view that analytic (as opposed to hortatory)
Philosophy is slowly being eaten by Science. And it's
a view that I happily hold. The mind is apparently
the last haven for analytic Philosophy, and I suspect
I might get to see it breached in my lifetime, and if
not, surely in the 22nd Century.

> The mind only approach is even more minimalist
> than the scientific / reductionist one.
> It doesn't assume even that there is
> an external world, just minds and their
> interconnections. So if you want the
> elegance of assuming as little as possible
> you should go for that one instead :-).

That is the one I hold, but like Ed Fredkin
I don't limit it to minds... matter also
processes information... I think Paul mentioned
the Holographic Principle here not long ago...

-Carl

> Right, but you believe the hammer is good for driving in nails,
> no? There are
> some who seem to question the very validity of science and
> technology at all,
> calling it a mythology.

And who every said that mythologies are invalid? The point is that they are
>stories< that we tell ourselves to try and make sense of life. The
scientific-reductionist-materialist worldview is a story among other
stories, a myth among other myths. Some myths allow you to shoot a satellite
to Saturn, other myths allow you to journey through levels of consciousness
and meet animal spirits, ET beings or angels. To me all of these are valid.
I'm blown aways by Cassini and the pictures that are being returned, and I
am also blown away meditating on awareness and contemplating the swarms of
non-human intelligences that are and always have been interacting with us on
both subconscious and (perhaps increasingly) conscious levels.

Dante

Cassini is powered by a load of plutonium that if it would have had an
accident , it could/would have caused millions to succumb to all your
classic radioactive cancers. At the time leading up to its launch there
were quite a few n big scientist thought it was much to risky.

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
>
> I don't remember. Can you remind me?
>
> > if something would have gone wrong , which can and does happen, not
> predicable by
> > numbers.
> >
> > In the end, a belief in science will send up another load of
> plutonium and risk
> > killing millions.
>
> Killing millions? PLease clarify what you're referring to, because I
> don't know what it is.
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 10:40 pm, kraig grady wrote:
> Arron!
> I think this whole thread started with putting the term 'Freethinker' on
> what you believe implying that the rest of us are not . Up to this point no
> one seem to be getting out of shape.

Who's getting out of shape?

I'm not implying anything about anyone...just stating beliefs and batting
around ideas...healthy stuff !!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Robert-

Thanks for an extremely interesting post! I feel like you're touching on
some of what I'm trying to get at, only much more clearly.

> To see that it is philosophical in nature,
> think, how could you prove that you have a body
> even, and that this world exists,
> by experiment? What experiment could one
> do and then as a result of the experiment
> say - therefore this world exists and
> my body exists (and it isn't for instance
> a particularly vivid and reasonably coherent
> dream).

This sounds like pure Descartes to me, which in my book is AOK! I find his
"Meditations", along with Hume, to be some of the most satisfying western
philosophy. Decartes says in Meditation 2:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Adeo ut, omnibus satis superque pensitatis, denique statuendum sit hoc
pronuntiatum, Ego sum, ego existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente
concipitur, necessario esse verum."

"De sorte qu'apres y avoir bien pense, et avoir soigneusement examine toutes
choses, enfin il faut conclure, et tenir pour constant que cette
proposition: Je suis, j'existe, est necessairement vraie, toutes les fois
que je la prononce, ou que je la concois en mon esprit."

"So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and
carefully considered, that this proposition (pronunciatum) I am, I exist, is
necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, this really is the one still point, the voice of pure awareness
speaking loud and clear. Everything else really is just colors and shapes,
and the stories we tell about them. I can't necessarily follow Descartes in
all his explorations, but here I feel he has arrived at something important
and conclusive.

Longchenpa (14th c.) wrote, in his "Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of
Phenomena":

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Naturally ocurring timeless awareness- utterly lucid awakened mind -
is something marvelous and superb, primordially and spontaneously present.
It is the treasury from which comes the universe of appearances
and possibilities, whether of samsara or nirvana.
Hommage to that unwavering state, free of elaboration."

"Mind itself is a vast expanse, the realm of unchanging space.
Its indeterminate display is the expanse of the magical
expression of its responsivness.
Everything is the adornment of basic space and nothing else.
Outwardly and inwardly, things proliferating and resolving are
the dynamic energy of awakened mind.
Because this is nothing whatsoever, yet arises as anything at all,
it is a marvelous and magical expression, amazing and superb."

"In brief, within the ultimate womb of basic space, spacious
and spontaneously present,
whatever arises as the dynamic energy of its display-
as samsara or nirvana-
in the very moment of simply arising has never known
existence as samsara or nirvana.
Whatever arises in a dream due to the dynamic energy of sleep
does not actually exist.
There is only self-knowing awareness, the blissful place of rest,
extending infinitly as the supremely spacious state of spontaneous
equalness."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Call it poetry, call it mythology (some may even call it bullshit). To me,
its the bee's knees.

Dante

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 02:37 pm, kraig grady wrote:

> > Or, closer to home, how it is that you can use mathematics (a form of
> > analysis) to design JI scales that have certain consonance/dissonance
> > properties?
>
> The consonance/dissonance question is a fine example of the failure of
> mathematics to represent the reality of the subject . They all are lacking
> including my own ( which does incorporate variables others would rather
> ignore). The belief in science causes just about every one to come up with
> one. They are all useless. A C major chord in F# major is dissonant

This seems to go against the very premise of JI. I would hardly call most of
the theorizing about con/dissonance 'useless'...but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, we do agree that it's a context question as well (C vs. F# as in your
example)

> > If not analysis, what was it you were doing when you constructed a
> > lattice based on certain symmetries (an analytic concept) to come up with
> > Centaur, or what was Erv doing when he constructed his CPS, etc.?
>
> These reflect no reality beyond itself. I use tools because i believe they
> are useful up to a point. In the end the music that one produces will have
> properties and expressions that cannot be predicted by there use except in
> a very limited way. I guess one could train oneself to hear every single
> not as to how it appears on a lattice, abut what would be accomplished.
> To make music one has to have faith in also something else to make it
> more than what we put into it. We have to hope that it blessed by
> something, if only coincidence.

I agree with you here !!!!

>
> > Pre-emptive counter answer: don't say creativity doesn't also involve
> > analysis (i.e. reflective feedback based on structural concerns). It
> > would be false !!
>
> Quite the contrary. I realized long time ago that that the part of myself
> that creates is different than the one that uses analysis. When i have
> attempted to use the latter, the result is dismal. you can see the result
> of such an approach in academia. stillborn children.

This is sort of a useless generality about academia. I suspect that modern
academia hosts a wide variety of compositional styles, and I doubt very much
that it's very helpful or useful to dismiss it all with a sweeping statement
like that. Not to mention being contentious.

But, there is a grain of truth to what you say, nonetheless.

I do agree that the brain is too magnificent to understand itself, and that
the creative process as well as consciousness are two of our greatest, and
perhaps ultimately impenetrable mysteries.

But I still contend that good compositions can happen as the result of logical
and rational structural thinking *combined* with intuitive, in fact I think
the strongest, most moving and enduring music has an equal share of both.
Certainly the symmetries of a work like the Art of Fugue are no accident of
improvisatory fever.....

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> Hi Carl-

Heya,

>>The difference here is rather artificial. Percepts are
>>interpretations too, of even lower-level sensory data,
>>which are in turn interpretations of (say) vibrations in
>>the cochlea. And interpreting a "table" is usually sub-
>>concious, just as interpreting "red" is usually
>>subconcious. And in either case one can consciously
>>step in with a little practice.
>
>I don't think a percept is an interpretation until you
>label it or connect it conceptually to other percepts.
>Percepts are simply contents of consciousness: colors
>etc.

That's a valid distinction, but as far as the universe
is concerned even the sensation of red (before the label)
is just an interpretation of the human mind of certain
frequencies and intensities of light. It is a lower-level
interpretation than "table" perhaps, but it is still
an interpretation.

You can also take drugs that change percepts without
changing much else about consciousness. For example,
DIPT shifts one's sense of concert pitch, so your
friends' voices all sound strange, but doesn't really
do much else to you, at least at low doses.

> We interpret a "table" subconciously becuase we
> are conditioned from an early age to do so. In a
> culture that does not have a concept for "table",
> all that will be interpretated is four sticks with
> some kind of roof over them.

I dunno, tables are clearly functional units in their
environment, and though it's hard to imagine being
ignorant of the notion of tables I tend to think an
equivalent notion would come about rather quickly,
perhaps even instantaneously.

> In a hypothetical consciousness that does not
> have a concept of "external objects", all that
> will be interpreted is smudges of colors and
> lines (assuming that the concepts of "color" and
> "line" exist in this consciousness)

I highly recommend it! ;)

> > Awareness is a boon for self-management, but again,
> > not terribly important in epistemology. This is
> > driven home in basic undergraduate courses on
> > epistemology, through which a majority of students
> > cannot stay awake.
>
> Thats perfect: the primacy of awareness is denied and
> then the students fall asleep! :-)

It took everything I had and a double espresso for me
to manage one of Searle's lectures. I had pity for
the regulars!

> So what is important in "undergraduate courses in
> episemology", if not the awareness that is taking the
> course in the first place?

Epistemology is all about the origin and nature of
knowledge. Since a turing machine stepping through all
possible proofs seems to be a valid means to knowledge,
awareness seems rather passe.

-Carl

Hi Guys,

I haven't followed this particular subthread, so forgive
me if this has already been covered. Just wanted to
mention that a lot of confusion revolves around different
meanings of the word science. There's the scientific
method, which we've been discussing. Then there's the
history of discoveries made by people who claim to be
using that method. This latter thing I often spell with
a capital S. I don't think science the method qualifies
as a religion, but some people do take too much of
Science on faith, and even evangelize about it. So I
do think some flavors of aetheism qualify as religion.

-Carl

hi Paul and Dante,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...>
wrote:
>
> > In a hypothetical consciousness that does not
> > have a concept of "external objects",
>
> Very hypothetical . . .
>
> > all that will be interpreted is smudges of colors
> > and lines (assuming that the concepts of "color"
> > and "line" exist in this consciousness)
>
> Maybe this is an early state of infant consciousness.
> Maybe the human brain is hard-wired to then attempt to
> connect these percepts until a consistent map of
> "external objects" can be put together. For example
> the toy hanging from the top of the crib, the mother,
> the pet dog.
> Maybe if the human brain didn't do this, the human being
> would be unable to survive and eventually reproduce,
> because some of these "external objects" would prevent
> it from doing so. Could you consider it?

we humans certainly have a profound need to classify
and organize our perceptions, always attempting to find
"laws" in nature.

i'm pretty sure this is a very broad-based thing.
even cultures which one might feel justified in calling
"primitive" (i.e., pygmies living in the forest, or
inner-city gangbangers) exhibit a delight in wordplay
that is nothing other than a fascination with classification
and meaning.

-monz

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 12:57 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I haven't followed this particular subthread, so forgive
> me if this has already been covered. Just wanted to
> mention that a lot of confusion revolves around different
> meanings of the word science. There's the scientific
> method, which we've been discussing. Then there's the
> history of discoveries made by people who claim to be
> using that method. This latter thing I often spell with
> a capital S. I don't think science the method qualifies
> as a religion, but some people do take too much of
> Science on faith, and even evangelize about it. So I
> do think some flavors of aetheism qualify as religion.

Yes, many are passionate about their 'non-belief in God', i.e. their 'god' is
their 'godless universe'.

I take atheism to mean 'disbelief in God and negative attitudes towards
organized religion'. In that definition I'm an atheist, however, one problem
I have with the word 'atheism' is that it gives primacy to 'theism' and makes
'a-theism' simply a reaction to theism.

What I believe feels more than a reaction, it's more a secular humanism view,
and I like that term, or 'freethinker' for their greater generality.

Carl, can you give an example of being 'evangelizing' about science? I would
guess you'd be talking about Dawkins or someone. Anyway, in all of the things
I've seen him write about, I think he's not gentle about it, and can be a
real prick, nevertheless, I still feel much of the time he's still right
on...he may have more faith than I about the power of science to probe some
of the deeper mysteries of the universe, whereas I think there are probably
hard limits to what humans can know, --- in fact we probably won't even be
able to know what the limits themselves are, because we'd have to see either
side of the limit!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Mircea Eliade made a big point of pointing out that myths are not falsehoods
and from the point of anthropology all myths are considered true because the
people who they belong to exist. (otherwise anthropology becomes ethnocentric
and loses its 'objectivity".

Dante Rosati wrote:

> > Right, but you believe the hammer is good for driving in nails,
> > no? There are
> > some who seem to question the very validity of science and
> > technology at all,
> > calling it a mythology.
>
> And who every said that mythologies are invalid? The point is that they are
> >stories< that we tell ourselves to try and make sense of life. The
> scientific-reductionist-materialist worldview is a story among other
> stories, a myth among other myths. Some myths allow you to shoot a satellite
> to Saturn, other myths allow you to journey through levels of consciousness
> and meet animal spirits, ET beings or angels. To me all of these are valid.
> I'm blown aways by Cassini and the pictures that are being returned, and I
> am also blown away meditating on awareness and contemplating the swarms of
> non-human intelligences that are and always have been interacting with us on
> both subconscious and (perhaps increasingly) conscious levels.
>
> Dante
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Hi Carl,

Yes, actually I'm sympathetic myself to the idea of a
unified theory of mind, matter and gravity.
Though I don't think it would prove scientific
reductionism if it could be done as it can
also be of interest from an idealist point
of view too, and those of intermediate
positions can also be interested in it.

Do you know Roger Penrose's ideas? He thinks
that during human thought coherence of
quantum waves occurs between neurons
in certain structures within neurons.
He also thinks that collapse of the
wave function happens spontaneously whenever
any piece of matter gets above the
Planck mass (this is his suggestion for new physics of the
future, his idea of what 22nd century physics
or whatever might include). So all the time, at
quite a small scale he thinks this is
happening.

He thinks non computability of human thought arises
from that gravity induced quantum collapse.
This is tied in with all his views about
why humans will always be better reasoners
than programmed computers - in the sense
that a human can construct a Godel sentence
for any theory and see its truth although
it can't be proved within the theory.
The computer program is always limited
by its programming and even if programmed
to construct Godel sentences, won't be able
to construct the Godel sentence for its
own reasoning, so in a sense a programmed
computer can never quite completely grasp
the notion of truth in the way a human can.

Anyway, if collapse of the wave function corresponds
to awareness in any way I wonder if that
suggests some kind of pervasive dim
awareness in matter itself?

There's a bit of a puzzle for those
of idealist sympathies, can you have
a world existing without minds.
One tends to feel no, if you
don't have minds, there is no being
to be aware of the matter, so the matter
can't exist. So then it is a puzzle,
how can this universe have come into being
given that history seems to suggest that
there were stretches of time when there
were no minds in it in the sense
in which we understand mind.

Were there perhaps organised forms
of matter in the primordial fireball
that could be aware in some sense
we can't understand now? Or
did the history come into being
with the first minds all at once
so that suddenly there were the first
minds and they perceived a universe
with many millions of years of past
history though in fact it was their
own perception of it that brought
it into being along with all
that history leading up to them?
So that in a sense the past never
happens on its own, only as traces in the
perceptions of beings that live
in the later stages of the universe.

Or perhaps maybe with Penrose's idea
one could think that matter itself
is dimly aware just enough to permit
it to exist. I rather sympathise
with that last idea.

Of course also Bishop Berkely famously
thought that matter exists because of some
supreme deity that is aware
of it all.

Anyway your idea of matter
as information processing
rather relates perhaps to this
idea of spontanous collapse of
the wave function as something
that is happening all the time
everywhere in the universe.

Also the idea that if it didn't
happen the rock or whatever couldn't
exist rather relates to the idea
that if one weren't aware of
other things, mind couldn't exist.
Like, that there has to be this
interplay between self and
other happening all the time.

That way you can kind of get the best
of both - you have an idealist
type universe in which mind is primary,
but matter can also exist independently because
of its dim awareness. So that is quite
appealing to those with very strong
idealist sympathies.

On the question about whether the
world continues afer one dies
- would it continue if there
were no beings at all left in
the world do you think?

Of course if one is sympathetic
to the idealist view then it
is more a question of whether
mind continues when ones personal world
has gone (from ones experience)
Or, whether all people's
and other types of beings minds
would continue when all their
worlds are gone too...

After all this world won't continue
for ever and quite possibly not even
this whole universe, according to
some cosmological ideas at least.
When it is gone all our dependent
personal worlds would go too.

If one sees minds as primary, perhaps
one tends to think it would continue
again in some form or other, not
this world any more but another one
would get created from the
interactions between the minds of
beings, and based on their past
experiences together. Maybe once
only - or maybe the whole thing
can happen over and over again
many times.

Maybe that can be incorporated into
the quantum mechanical picture as well.
I remember a lecture by Roger Penrose
in which he suggested that in a
universe in which there is nothing
left but light spreading out
endlessly, then quantum mechanically
it might spontaneously re-organise,
over long periods of time, to form
a new baby universe (at least
if I remember it - something of that
flavour anyway - it was a long time
ago that I heard it).

Robert

Robert-

Interesting post !!!!

It's clear that some scientists nowadays, frustrated by the reductionist
theories of mind, are taking quite seriously the idea of consciousness as a
fundamental froce of nature rather than an emergent epiphenomenon.

There might be something to that idea after all....

-A.

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 11:41 am, Robert Walker wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Yes, actually I'm sympathetic myself to the idea of a
> unified theory of mind, matter and gravity.
> Though I don't think it would prove scientific
> reductionism if it could be done as it can
> also be of interest from an idealist point
> of view too, and those of intermediate
> positions can also be interested in it.
>
> Do you know Roger Penrose's ideas? He thinks
> that during human thought coherence of
> quantum waves occurs between neurons
> in certain structures within neurons.
> He also thinks that collapse of the
> wave function happens spontaneously whenever
> any piece of matter gets above the
> Planck mass (this is his suggestion for new physics of the
> future, his idea of what 22nd century physics
> or whatever might include). So all the time, at
> quite a small scale he thinks this is
> happening.
>
> He thinks non computability of human thought arises
> from that gravity induced quantum collapse.
> This is tied in with all his views about
> why humans will always be better reasoners
> than programmed computers - in the sense
> that a human can construct a Godel sentence
> for any theory and see its truth although
> it can't be proved within the theory.
> The computer program is always limited
> by its programming and even if programmed
> to construct Godel sentences, won't be able
> to construct the Godel sentence for its
> own reasoning, so in a sense a programmed
> computer can never quite completely grasp
> the notion of truth in the way a human can.
>
> Anyway, if collapse of the wave function corresponds
> to awareness in any way I wonder if that
> suggests some kind of pervasive dim
> awareness in matter itself?
>
> There's a bit of a puzzle for those
> of idealist sympathies, can you have
> a world existing without minds.
> One tends to feel no, if you
> don't have minds, there is no being
> to be aware of the matter, so the matter
> can't exist. So then it is a puzzle,
> how can this universe have come into being
> given that history seems to suggest that
> there were stretches of time when there
> were no minds in it in the sense
> in which we understand mind.
>
> Were there perhaps organised forms
> of matter in the primordial fireball
> that could be aware in some sense
> we can't understand now? Or
> did the history come into being
> with the first minds all at once
> so that suddenly there were the first
> minds and they perceived a universe
> with many millions of years of past
> history though in fact it was their
> own perception of it that brought
> it into being along with all
> that history leading up to them?
> So that in a sense the past never
> happens on its own, only as traces in the
> perceptions of beings that live
> in the later stages of the universe.
>
> Or perhaps maybe with Penrose's idea
> one could think that matter itself
> is dimly aware just enough to permit
> it to exist. I rather sympathise
> with that last idea.
>
> Of course also Bishop Berkely famously
> thought that matter exists because of some
> supreme deity that is aware
> of it all.
>
> Anyway your idea of matter
> as information processing
> rather relates perhaps to this
> idea of spontanous collapse of
> the wave function as something
> that is happening all the time
> everywhere in the universe.
>
> Also the idea that if it didn't
> happen the rock or whatever couldn't
> exist rather relates to the idea
> that if one weren't aware of
> other things, mind couldn't exist.
> Like, that there has to be this
> interplay between self and
> other happening all the time.
>
> That way you can kind of get the best
> of both - you have an idealist
> type universe in which mind is primary,
> but matter can also exist independently because
> of its dim awareness. So that is quite
> appealing to those with very strong
> idealist sympathies.
>
> On the question about whether the
> world continues afer one dies
> - would it continue if there
> were no beings at all left in
> the world do you think?
>
> Of course if one is sympathetic
> to the idealist view then it
> is more a question of whether
> mind continues when ones personal world
> has gone (from ones experience)
> Or, whether all people's
> and other types of beings minds
> would continue when all their
> worlds are gone too...
>
> After all this world won't continue
> for ever and quite possibly not even
> this whole universe, according to
> some cosmological ideas at least.
> When it is gone all our dependent
> personal worlds would go too.
>
> If one sees minds as primary, perhaps
> one tends to think it would continue
> again in some form or other, not
> this world any more but another one
> would get created from the
> interactions between the minds of
> beings, and based on their past
> experiences together. Maybe once
> only - or maybe the whole thing
> can happen over and over again
> many times.
>
> Maybe that can be incorporated into
> the quantum mechanical picture as well.
> I remember a lecture by Roger Penrose
> in which he suggested that in a
> universe in which there is nothing
> left but light spreading out
> endlessly, then quantum mechanically
> it might spontaneously re-organise,
> over long periods of time, to form
> a new baby universe (at least
> if I remember it - something of that
> flavour anyway - it was a long time
> ago that I heard it).
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
>
> Robert-
>
> Interesting post !!!!
>
> It's clear that some scientists nowadays, frustrated by the
reductionist
> theories of mind, are taking quite seriously the idea of
consciousness as a
> fundamental froce of nature rather than an emergent epiphenomenon.
>
> There might be something to that idea after all....
>
> -A.

have you guys read this yet?

"Three Roads to Quantum Gravity"
by Lee Smolin
Publisher: Perseus Books Group; 1st edition (July 2, 2002)
ISBN: 0465078362

http://tinyurl.com/yubd8

-monz

July 7, 1860.

-monz

Monz-

> have you guys read this yet?
>
>
> "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity"
> by Lee Smolin
> Publisher: Perseus Books Group; 1st edition (July 2, 2002)
> ISBN: 0465078362

I read this last year and its really fascinating stuff: it also talks about
theories where the speed of light is perhaps not so constant after all, and
just the other day I noticed this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996092

Dante

Robert-

Another great post! Keep on typing!

> Or did the history come into being
> with the first minds all at once
> so that suddenly there were the first
> minds and they perceived a universe
> with many millions of years of past
> history though in fact it was their
> own perception of it that brought
> it into being along with all
> that history leading up to them?
> So that in a sense the past never
> happens on its own, only as traces in the
> perceptions of beings that live
> in the later stages of the universe.

I've often thought that there is no way to disprove the possibility that
when you woke up this morning, you and the universe sprang into being ex
nihilo, including memories of past days.

Its also the case that the only reason we willingly surrender our
consciousness when we go to sleep is we are convinced that we will wake up
again, and there will be continuity. But there are no guarentees really.

So this day might well be the whole of existence.

To follow this further: I can "remember" getting up this morning, and I can
think of a pink elephant. I consider one to be a recollection of something
that "really happened" and the other to be an imagination. But again: on
what do I base this distinction except for other memories of continuity? Can
the reality of a past memory be proved by appealing to other memories?

When all is said and done, it seems to me that only the self-awareness of
the present awareness has any airtight claim to reality whatsoever.

Dante

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

> I've often thought that there is no way to disprove the possibility
that
> when you woke up this morning, you and the universe sprang into
being ex
> nihilo, including memories of past days.

http://home.eznet.net/~heiny/theories/last_thursday.html

http://www.burgy.50megs.com/omphalos.htm

Haha, thats great Gene! Although, judging from the dead links on that first
page, its not really a "hot topic" these days! Ifs funny that the refutation
involves rejecting the implication that "God" would then be a liar or a
deceiver- if you dont couch it in theistic terms to begin with, that
objection does not obtain. Spontaneous Ex nihilo creation fits more
comfortably with quantum foam, virtual particles and the like.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene Ward Smith [mailto:gwsmith@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 2:47 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Belief-O-Matic
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
>
> > I've often thought that there is no way to disprove the possibility
> that
> > when you woke up this morning, you and the universe sprang into
> being ex
> > nihilo, including memories of past days.
>
> http://home.eznet.net/~heiny/theories/last_thursday.html
>
> http://www.burgy.50megs.com/omphalos.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> What I believe feels more than a reaction, it's more a secular
humanism view,
> and I like that term, or 'freethinker' for their greater
generality.

"Secular humanist" makes sense only if you are one, and "freethinker"
is mere propaganda. Why not simply buy a sparkly t-shirt from Monz
which says "I am cool, and way smarter than you" on it?

> Carl, can you give an example of being 'evangelizing' about
> science? I would guess you'd be talking about Dawkins or
> someone.

No, I wasn't thinking of Dawkins' type. You know, just the
annoying type that can't eat dinner with a Christian without
confronting them. Any strong belief in the Big Bang, so
strong you need to tell others about it all the time, would
probably qualify. Usually these folks are not themselves
scientists. Real scientists are typically more accustomed
to awe and uncertainty.

> I've seen him write about, I think he's not gentle about
> it, and can be a real prick, nevertheless, I still feel
> much of the time he's still right on...

I'm a fan myself.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I haven't followed this particular subthread, so forgive
> me if this has already been covered. Just wanted to
> mention that a lot of confusion revolves around different
> meanings of the word science. There's the scientific
> method, which we've been discussing.

There is no one scientific method.

Then there's the
> history of discoveries made by people who claim to be
> using that method.

Most scientists would say they work with the methods regarded as
essential to good work in their own particular field, which if you
inquire about, you will find varies greatly between fields of study.

This latter thing I often spell with
> a capital S.

"Scientism" may be the word you are looking for.

I don't think science the method qualifies
> as a religion, but some people do take too much of
> Science on faith, and even evangelize about it. So I
> do think some flavors of aetheism qualify as religion.

sci·en·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn-tzm)
n.

The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences
are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> Can you define what is physical and what is not?
> Are not all concepts including metaphysical ones, the artifacts of
matter

If it was that easy, computers would have concepts. But they don't; a
computer will add 2 and 2 and get 4, but it doesn't know it is doing
that; you could reverse bits on output and it would be just as happy.
You, seeing the answer, are the one who concieves that 2 and 2 has
been added, and that 4 is the result.

> When all is said and done, it seems to me that only the
> self-awareness of the present awareness has any airtight
> claim to reality whatsoever.

Hi Dante,

Are you familiar with David Deutsch's _The Fabric of
Reality_? You might enjoy it.

-Carl

> > Then there's the
> > history of discoveries made by people who claim to be
> > using that method.
>
> Most scientists would say they work with the methods
> regarded as essential to good work in their own
> particular field, which if you inquire about, you
> will find varies greatly between fields of study.

Example?

> This latter thing I often spell with
> > a capital S.
>
> "Scientism" may be the word you are looking for.
//
> The belief that the investigative methods of the physical
> sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of
> inquiry.

No, with "Science" I am referring to the actual
consensus positions, whatever those are. I've found
that many people use the word science in this way.

-Carl

Hi Robert,

> Do you know Roger Penrose's ideas? He thinks
> that during human thought coherence of
> quantum waves occurs between neurons
> in certain structures within neurons.
> He also thinks that collapse of the
> wave function happens spontaneously whenever
> any piece of matter gets above the
> Planck mass (this is his suggestion for new
> physics of the future, his idea of what 22nd
> century physics or whatever might include).
> So all the time, at quite a small scale he
> thinks this is happening.

I read _The Emperor's New Mind_ when I was in
high school, and did a report on it. Around 1995
there was an article in the Journal of
Consciousness Studies called "The Gaps in
Penrose's Toiling", written by a group of
Neuroscientists, that debunked, successfully in
my opinion, the microtubules/wave function thing.
A good friend of mine who is a very gifted
MCB/Neuroscience grad student agrees.

I was very unimpressed by the discussion of
Godel's theorem that was supposed to show
that computers can't be conscious.

Ironically, Penrose was the first to use spin
networks in QM, which are extremely interesting
from the 'the universe is a huge discrete
automaton' point of view.

> He thinks non computability of human thought
> arises from that gravity induced quantum collapse.
> This is tied in with all his views about
> why humans will always be better reasoners
> than programmed computers - in the sense
> that a human can construct a Godel sentence
> for any theory and see its truth although
> it can't be proved within the theory.
> The computer program is always limited
> by its programming

Not if it is allowed to update its programming.

> and even if programmed
> to construct Godel sentences, won't be able
> to construct the Godel sentence for its
> own reasoning, so in a sense a programmed
> computer can never quite completely grasp
> the notion of truth in the way a human can.

I fail to see how humans magically escape
Godel incompleteness.

> Anyway your idea of matter
> as information processing
> rather relates perhaps to this
> idea of spontanous collapse of
> the wave function as something
> that is happening all the time
> everywhere in the universe.

Except, like Fredkin, I prefer
discrete deterministic models,
rather than QM.

> On the question about whether the
> world continues afer one dies
> - would it continue if there
> were no beings at all left in
> the world do you think?

I do, because that seems like the best
explanation of what I observe.

I highly recommend David Deutsch's
_The Fabric of Reality_. I think
you'd love it!

> If one sees minds as primary,

I see information processing as
primary - slightly different.

-Carl

Hi Carl-

yeah, I read that one too last year- I remember I wasn't very impressed by
it, but cant remember the specifics of why. I liked Smolin's book much
better.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:42 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Belief-O-Matic
>
>
> > When all is said and done, it seems to me that only the
> > self-awareness of the present awareness has any airtight
> > claim to reality whatsoever.
>
> Hi Dante,
>
> Are you familiar with David Deutsch's _The Fabric of
> Reality_? You might enjoy it.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Deutsch: The Fabric of Reality]

> yeah, I read that one too last year- I remember I wasn't
> very impressed by it, but cant remember the specifics of
> why. I liked Smolin's book much better.

They're two very different kinds of books. Deutsch is
submitting a constructive work of philosophy, whereas
Smolin is telling the semi-autobiographical story of a
particular field in physics.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:

> Well, I first took the test Saturday and posted the results to the
list, but for some reason they never showed up.

I took it some time ago, and came out a Liberal Quaker.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > Then there's the
> > > history of discoveries made by people who claim to be
> > > using that method.
> >
> > Most scientists would say they work with the methods
> > regarded as essential to good work in their own
> > particular field, which if you inquire about, you
> > will find varies greatly between fields of study.
>
> Example?

Compare cosmology with chemistry. Cosmology relies on observation and
very heavily on theory, and these days is closely related to theories
about very high energy physics. While it has been suggested that a
big bang might be created in a lab, no one has done so. Chemistry is
a classic lab science; while mathematical models are important, it is
results, so to speak, which count.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Cassini is powered by a load of plutonium that if it would have had
an
> accident , it could/would have caused millions to succumb to all
your
> classic radioactive cancers.

Well, if you're right about that, can I just say . . . Phew!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Except, like Fredkin, I prefer
> discrete deterministic models,
> rather than QM.

Hi Carl,

I believe Konrad Zuse was the first to suggest that our universe
might be a huge computer simulation going on in some other world.
This idea is embraced by Fredkin. Some ideas of Tegmark and
Schmidhuber suggest that there is no need for the simulator.

These discrete models seem to contradict Special Relativity because
they assume universal time.

>Hi Carl,
>
>I believe Konrad Zuse was the first to suggest that our universe
>might be a huge computer simulation going on in some other world.

That's right.

> This idea is embraced by Fredkin.

He wasn't aware of Zuse's work when he first started his own.

> Some ideas of Tegmark and
> Schmidhuber suggest that there is no need for the simulator.

Can you clarify?

> These discrete models seem to contradict Special Relativity
> because they assume universal time.

Wolfram has a discussion of how one might get relativistic
spacetime out of a CA. It was later disputed by a review
I read in MAA, IIRC....

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > Except, like Fredkin, I prefer
> > discrete deterministic models,
> > rather than QM.
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> I believe Konrad Zuse was the first to suggest that our universe
> might be a huge computer simulation going on in some other world.
> This idea is embraced by Fredkin. Some ideas of Tegmark and
> Schmidhuber suggest that there is no need for the simulator.
>
> These discrete models seem to contradict Special Relativity because
> they assume universal time.

Some relevant links:

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Robert-
> >
> > Interesting post !!!!
> >
> > It's clear that some scientists nowadays, frustrated by the
> reductionist
> > theories of mind, are taking quite seriously the idea of
> consciousness as a
> > fundamental froce of nature rather than an emergent epiphenomenon.
> >
> > There might be something to that idea after all....
> >
> > -A.
>
>
>
> have you guys read this yet?
>
>
> "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity"
> by Lee Smolin
> Publisher: Perseus Books Group; 1st edition (July 2, 2002)
> ISBN: 0465078362
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yubd8
>
>
>
> -monz

Yup . . .

What interested me was his ideas on the many worlds interpretation and
multiverses. I just didn't find his writing style very engaging.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:38 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Belief-O-Matic
>
>
> [Deutsch: The Fabric of Reality]
>
> > yeah, I read that one too last year- I remember I wasn't
> > very impressed by it, but cant remember the specifics of
> > why. I liked Smolin's book much better.
>
> They're two very different kinds of books. Deutsch is
> submitting a constructive work of philosophy, whereas
> Smolin is telling the semi-autobiographical story of a
> particular field in physics.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >Hi Carl,
> >
> >I believe Konrad Zuse was the first to suggest that our universe
> >might be a huge computer simulation going on in some other world.
>
> That's right.
>
> > This idea is embraced by Fredkin.
>
> He wasn't aware of Zuse's work when he first started his own.
>
> > Some ideas of Tegmark and
> > Schmidhuber suggest that there is no need for the simulator.
>
> Can you clarify?

According to Tegmark's TOE there is a physically real universe
corresponding to every logically consistent mathematical structure.
So there is also a Turing Machine running every possible program. I'm
combining Tegmark and Schmidhuber here. :)

Of course that Turing Machine could be seen as a simulator or perhaps
as the Simulator. :)

> > These discrete models seem to contradict Special Relativity
> > because they assume universal time.
>
> Wolfram has a discussion of how one might get relativistic
> spacetime out of a CA. It was later disputed by a review
> I read in MAA, IIRC....

That's very interesting. Special Relativity seems to suggest static
view of spacetime like in the film "12 Monkeys". In this view the
future is real and there is no "becoming". This is very common topic
in the philosophy of time. Google for "Rietdijk Putnam Maxwell".

There are also logical arguments for the unreality of the passage of
time such as McTaggart's paradox.

I don't see how computers could simulate static blocks of spacetime.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> Monz-
>
> > have you guys read this yet?
> >
> >
> > "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity"
> > by Lee Smolin
> > Publisher: Perseus Books Group; 1st edition (July 2, 2002)
> > ISBN: 0465078362
>
> I read this last year and its really fascinating stuff: it also
>talks about
> theories where the speed of light is perhaps not so constant after
>all,

Well, such theories can arise on a whole different "level".

I'd recommend you also check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738205257/103-5498842-
0174200?v=glance

Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation
by Joao Magueijo.

Magueijo is a reknowned physics prof. with a radical idea called VSL
(variable speed of light).

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> Robert-
>
> Another great post! Keep on typing!
>
> > Or did the history come into being
> > with the first minds all at once
> > so that suddenly there were the first
> > minds and they perceived a universe
> > with many millions of years of past
> > history though in fact it was their
> > own perception of it that brought
> > it into being along with all
> > that history leading up to them?
> > So that in a sense the past never
> > happens on its own, only as traces in the
> > perceptions of beings that live
> > in the later stages of the universe.
>
> I've often thought that there is no way to disprove the possibility
that
> when you woke up this morning, you and the universe sprang into
being ex
> nihilo, including memories of past days.

In fact, this is, statistically speaking, more probable than your
memories and historical records actually being valid! This
unbelievable result is covered in this VERY readable new book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412883/103-5498842-
0174200?v=glance

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality
by Brian Greene

> Its also the case that the only reason we willingly surrender our
> consciousness when we go to sleep is we are convinced that we will
wake up
> again,

Well, some people do commit suicide, you know . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Anyway your idea of matter
> > as information processing
> > rather relates perhaps to this
> > idea of spontanous collapse of
> > the wave function as something
> > that is happening all the time
> > everywhere in the universe.
>
> Except, like Fredkin, I prefer
> discrete deterministic models,
> rather than QM.

You'll need to address the fact of QM eventually, and you might be
glad you did:

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1

http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html

http://mathematicsbooks.org/search_Anton_Zeilinger/searchBy_Author.htm
l

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I highly recommend David Deutsch's
> _The Fabric of Reality_. I think
> you'd love it!

I recommend even more highly the many books that critique it. Plenty
lying around here, more at my place . . .

Yeah, that's the far-fetched stuff. But there's a great
defense and restatement of Popper in there, including a
fantastic fictional dialog between a "Crypto-Inductivist"
and the author, which, if I have time, I may comment on
here.

-Carl

> What interested me was his ideas on the many worlds
> interpretation and multiverses. I just didn't find
> his writing style very engaging.
>
> Dante
>
> > [Deutsch: The Fabric of Reality]
> >
> > > yeah, I read that one too last year- I remember I wasn't
> > > very impressed by it, but cant remember the specifics of
> > > why. I liked Smolin's book much better.
> >
> > They're two very different kinds of books. Deutsch is
> > submitting a constructive work of philosophy, whereas
> > Smolin is telling the semi-autobiographical story of a
> > particular field in physics.
> >
> > -Carl

> > I highly recommend David Deutsch's
> > _The Fabric of Reality_. I think
> > you'd love it!
>
> I recommend even more highly the many books that critique
> it. Plenty lying around here, more at my place . . .

Critique what about it? Or if you have a surplus of
such books, feel free to loan one to me!

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > I highly recommend David Deutsch's
> > > _The Fabric of Reality_. I think
> > > you'd love it!
> >
> > I recommend even more highly the many books that critique
> > it. Plenty lying around here, more at my place . . .
>
> Critique what about it? Or if you have a surplus of
> such books, feel free to loan one to me!

Absolutely! Next time you're in Boston, I'll pile a big load of them
on you . . .

>>>> Then there's the
>>>> history of discoveries made by people who claim
>>>> to be using that method.
>>>
>>> Most scientists would say they work with the methods
>>> regarded as essential to good work in their own
>>> particular field, which if you inquire about, you
>>> will find varies greatly between fields of study.
>>
>> Example?
>
> Compare cosmology with chemistry. Cosmology relies on
> observation and very heavily on theory, and these days
> is closely related to theories about very high energy
> physics. While it has been suggested that a big bang
> might be created in a lab, no one has done so. Chemistry
> is a classic lab science; while mathematical models are
> important, it is results, so to speak, which count.

I think they both work the same way. Namely, they
build models and test them when they can. Models
suggest tests, and repeatable results force revision
of models, with Occam's razor guiding otherwise.

There are lots of different kinds of chemistry. In
my Dad's version of pharmaceutical chemistry, his
methods primarily involved a yellow legal pad, red
felt-tip pen, and drifting in and out of consciousness
while watching bad kung fu movies.

-Carl

> > > Anyway your idea of matter
> > > as information processing
> > > rather relates perhaps to this
> > > idea of spontanous collapse of
> > > the wave function as something
> > > that is happening all the time
> > > everywhere in the universe.
> >
> > Except, like Fredkin, I prefer
> > discrete deterministic models,
> > rather than QM.
>
> You'll need to address the fact of QM eventually,

I think the hope is to derrive QM with an
underlying model, along the lines of what
Einstein hoped for.

> and you might be glad you did:
>
> http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1
> http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html

That stuff is all cool, and some of it has
already been demonstrated. Obviously any
discrete model will have to make predictions
very similar to those of QM.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > Anyway your idea of matter
> > > > as information processing
> > > > rather relates perhaps to this
> > > > idea of spontanous collapse of
> > > > the wave function as something
> > > > that is happening all the time
> > > > everywhere in the universe.
> > >
> > > Except, like Fredkin, I prefer
> > > discrete deterministic models,
> > > rather than QM.
> >
> > You'll need to address the fact of QM eventually,
>
> I think the hope is to derrive QM with an
> underlying model, along the lines of what
> Einstein hoped for.
>
> > and you might be glad you did:
> >
> > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1
> > http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html
>
> That stuff is all cool, and some of it has
> already been demonstrated. Obviously any
> discrete model will have to make predictions
> very similar to those of QM.

But you also said deterministic.

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 02:17 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> wrote:
> > What I believe feels more than a reaction, it's more a secular
>
> humanism view,
>
> > and I like that term, or 'freethinker' for their greater
>
> generality.
>
> "Secular humanist" makes sense only if you are one, and "freethinker"
> is mere propaganda. Why not simply buy a sparkly t-shirt from Monz
> which says "I am cool, and way smarter than you" on it?

Funny!

Anyway, I am a secular humanist without taking part in their club activities,
fair enough?

Freethinker is not propaganda. It's a description of a worldview, nothing more
or less. It's ony propaganda to those who may be implicated by it (I'm not
saying you are).

-A.

http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 03:13 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Except, like Fredkin, I prefer
> discrete deterministic models,
> rather than QM.
>

Just want to point out that Buckminster Fuller seems to have come up with the
idea of a discrete universe idea in 'Synergetics' years before Fredkin.

I don't rember what chapter/section, but I remember reading about discrete
angles as well, and how 60 degrees was special because of the nature of
circular tilings and hexagons, etc.....

-A.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...> wrote:

> That's very interesting. Special Relativity seems to suggest static
> view of spacetime like in the film "12 Monkeys". In this view the
> future is real and there is no "becoming". This is very common
topic
> in the philosophy of time. Google for "Rietdijk Putnam Maxwell".
>
> There are also logical arguments for the unreality of the passage
of
> time such as McTaggart's paradox.

We have no difficulty seeing the subjective character of "the here",
but tend to feel "the now" expresses something real. McTaggart (and
this line of thought actually goes back to Parmenides) points out
that assuming "the now" is an actual predicate which attaches a
quality of nowness to some point in time makes no sense. The argument
is sound; the only difficulty is that we seem to experience
existential nowness, even though that also seems to be nonsense.
Perhaps we have a proof here that we don't actually exist.

Hi Carl,

> Not if it is allowed to update its programming.

That's no good if the way it is allowed to
update its programming is itself programmed.
You can add infinitely many Godel axioms
to a theory in an algorithmic way and
get a Godel sentence still. I can't
remember the details but remember the
result. That's why Roger Penrose says
that there has to be something not computable
going on. His ideas were pretty thoroughly
scrutinised - here in Oxford there is
perhaps the largest logic / philosophy
of mathematics group of researchers in
the UK and he presents his ideas to the
group and gets lots of feedback from it.
I don't think you will find flaws
in the reasoning or the philosophy
at least not easy to find ones certainly.
I was here studying at the university
when he was writing the book, not that
I was in anyway involved in the criticism
of his ideas, but I did go to some of his
early talks that he gave before it was published.

> I fail to see how humans magically escape
> Godel incompleteness.

Well the other possibility is that human
beings don't understand truth quite,
so that on occasion when presented with
a Godel sentence they mightn not recognise
its truth, no matter how long they
consider it, even though it is in fact
true (if the axioms are consistent).
But I take the point of view that
humans can undertand what truth is and
can follow that, and can't be mistaken
- can be in individual cases but the
basic idea of what truth is is something
clear that I think will be shared
by any living being that reaches
a certain level of understanding
of the world - not by all beings,
isn't a hallmark of conciousness,
but is a potential in conciousness
and I'm convinced by Roger Penrose's
argument that it isn't a potential
in programmed computers.

> > On the question about whether the
> > world continues afer one dies
> > - would it continue if there
> > were no beings at all left in
> > the world do you think?

> I do, because that seems like the best
> explanation of what I observe.

> I highly recommend David Deutsch's
> _The Fabric of Reality_. I think
> you'd love it!

Yes of course, no reason why you
wouldn't. Of course you would
if you think of matter as
primary and mind as secondary.

Indeed only if one has very strong
idealist views might one wonder
about it. If one thinks of
the world as mediating interactions
between minds, one might nevertheless
consider it possible that it could
continue without minds there.
Other ways it could continue too.

But perhaps you can see how it
is a question one can ask, and
that might even cause some moments
of thought - and that others might
legitimately have other views
about the matter.

I remember a couple of talks by
David Deutsch as he was also
here in Oxford, teaching when I was
studying here - they were on
quantum computation, and interesting
they were too. But I didn't know
he'd written this book - I'm sure
he would have interesting things
to say, and I'll look out for it.

> > If one sees minds as primary,

> I see information processing as
> primary - slightly different.

Yes I understand that. I wasn't
aiming to present you as an
Idealist!! But then I suppose
what I said could be understood
that way by someone who thinks of
minds as by definition
information processing.

I just thought you'd
be interested in the parallels
and the kind of dualist (not perfect
surely) symmetry between the two positions
- that reductionists say the
same kind of things about matter that
idealists say about mind.
That the question of whether
the mind continues after the
body and world is gone from ones
personal experience is a kind of
symmetrical question to the one
about whether the world continues
after minds are gone from it.

Then, same sort of reasoning too,
that one thinks it does because
often other things have departed
from ones awareness during ones
life and the mind continued through it,
so seems that it would continue
even when the entire world
disappears. Particularly also
that when one wakes up from dreams
everything in the dream vanishes
completely but the mind continues
into another world. That happens
every night, though one doesn't
always remember it. So seems
pretty likely that it will happen
when one dies too.

That I know won't seem convincing
if you think of matter as primary,
but if you think of mind as primary
then it is - and which you take
as primary is a philsophical
rather than a scientific matter,
as both are valid extensions of
the scientific method at least of reasoning
carefully and clearly about things into reasoning
about the mind and philosophical
matters.

It is a kind of interesting parallel,
the way the one argument reasons
for the continuation of matter
in the form of this world
after one has gone from it, and the other
reasons for the continuation of
mind after ones body and personal
world has gone. Though the
arguments aren't exact parallels,
there's an intriguing kind of near
duality between them.

Robert

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> Freethinker is not propaganda.

More propaganda. If "freethinker" means believing X, for *any* value
of X, then it says "think the way I think, be my mental slave, or you
are not thinking freely". Someone who says they are a "freethinker"
is telling the world what to think, exactly like the Pope does. The
contradiction is of course obvious.

What the word ought to mean, what it supposedly does mean but is
never really used to mean, is someone who rejects authority and does
their own thinking. That, however, covers not just the Pope, it
covers *you*. I reject out of hand the idea I must believe what you
believe, or not be a free thinker; the notion is patently offensive.

It's a description of a worldview, nothing more
> or less. It's ony propaganda to those who may be implicated by it
(I'm not
> saying you are).

Propaganda, and offensive.

> > > and you might be glad you did:
> > >
> > > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1
> > > http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html
> >
> > That stuff is all cool, and some of it has
> > already been demonstrated. Obviously any
> > discrete model will have to make predictions
> > very similar to those of QM.
>
> But you also said deterministic.

Yes; it could be deterministic at a lower level.

-Carl

Freethinker \Free"think`er\, n.
One who speculates or forms opinions independently of the
authority of others; esp., in the sphere or religion, one who
forms opinions independently of the authority of revelation
or of the church; an unbeliever; -- a term assumed by deists
and skeptics in the eighteenth century.

Atheist is an old-fashioned word: I'm a freethinker,
child. --Addison.

Syn: Infidel; skeptic; unbeliever. See Infidel.

That's what I'm going on, definition wise. Of course, your argument applies
partially, but only to those who feel they must follow the freethinker's
example. Or the rare case when a freethinker tries to force other's to follow
the 'freethought example', which is not what I'm doing. But I can't make you
not have the false perceptions of my motives that you are having, so you're
on your own there.

Most freethinkers would be happy to have you form your own opinion, even if
they would have a private opinion about it. No matter though, it's a private
opinion. And we are all entitled to those !!

> More propaganda. If "freethinker" means believing X, for *any* value
> of X, then it says "think the way I think, be my mental slave, or you
> are not thinking freely". Someone who says they are a "freethinker"
> is telling the world what to think, exactly like the Pope does. The
> contradiction is of course obvious.
> What the word ought to mean, what it supposedly does mean but is
> never really used to mean, is someone who rejects authority and does
> their own thinking. That, however, covers not just the Pope, it
> covers *you*. I reject out of hand the idea I must believe what you
> believe, or not be a free thinker; the notion is patently offensive.

Never said you needed to think what I think. Quote me, or eat your words.

> It's a description of a worldview, nothing more
>
> > or less. It's ony propaganda to those who may be implicated by it
>
> (I'm not
>
> > saying you are).
>
> Propaganda, and offensive.

To you. Sorry that expressing my worldview is offensive to you.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Gene,

Freethinker \Free"think`er\, n.
One who speculates or forms opinions independently of the
authority of others; esp., in the sphere or religion, one who
forms opinions independently of the authority of revelation
or of the church; an unbeliever; -- a term assumed by deists
and skeptics in the eighteenth century.

Atheist is an old-fashioned word: I'm a freethinker,
child. --Addison.

Syn: Infidel; skeptic; unbeliever. See Infidel.

That's what I'm going on, definition wise. Of course, your argument applies
partially, but only to those who feel they must follow the freethinker's
example. Or the rare case when a freethinker tries to force other's to follow
the 'freethought example', which is not what I'm doing. But I can't make you
not have the false perceptions of my motives that you are having, so you're
on your own there.

Most freethinkers would be happy to have you form your own opinion, even if
they would have a private opinion about it. No matter though, it's a private
opinion. And we are all entitled to those !!

You wrote:
> More propaganda. If "freethinker" means believing X, for *any* value
> of X, then it says "think the way I think, be my mental slave, or you
> are not thinking freely". Someone who says they are a "freethinker"
> is telling the world what to think, exactly like the Pope does. The
> contradiction is of course obvious.
> What the word ought to mean, what it supposedly does mean but is
> never really used to mean, is someone who rejects authority and does
> their own thinking. That, however, covers not just the Pope, it
> covers *you*. I reject out of hand the idea I must believe what you
> believe, or not be a free thinker; the notion is patently offensive.

Never said you needed to think what I think. Quote me, or eat your words.

> It's a description of a worldview, nothing more
>
> > or less. It's ony propaganda to those who may be implicated by it
>
> (I'm not
>
> > saying you are).
>
> Propaganda, and offensive.

To you. Sorry that expressing my worldview is offensive to you.

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 07:29 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> I reject out of hand the idea I must believe what you
> believe, or not be a free thinker; the notion is patently offensive.

Another thing-- where in the definition of freethought is the explicit, or
even implicit idea that all 'freethinker' must come to the *same* conclusions
about topic X ?

You whole argument dissolves into a pointless rant when you consider this,
plus the fact that I never said anything whatsoever about anyone (least of
all you, Gene) *having* to believe what I believe.

Like I said before, point me to a direct quote where this is stated, or
realize that you've been carrying on a conversation with yourself, and
decided to dump on me.

I'm confused as all hell where you drummed up the subtext you did in our
communications on the matter....

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> Freethinker \Free"think`er\, n.
> One who speculates or forms opinions independently of the
> authority of others; esp., in the sphere or religion, one who
> forms opinions independently of the authority of revelation
> or of the church; an unbeliever; -- a term assumed by deists
> and skeptics in the eighteenth century.
>
> Atheist is an old-fashioned word: I'm a freethinker,
> child. --Addison.
>
> Syn: Infidel; skeptic; unbeliever. See Infidel.
>
> That's what I'm going on, definition wise. Of course, your argument
applies
> partially, but only to those who feel they must follow the
freethinker's
> example.

My objection is not to the hypothetical possibility that someone uses
the word according to the first dictionary definition above, but to
the sad linguistic fact that no one does, and Mr. Addison's usage is
in fact what the word really means. It becomes a kind of bait and
switch routine, whereby you are promised thought and end up with a
particular opinion which is required as the outcome of your thoughts.

Or the rare case when a freethinker tries to force other's to follow
> the 'freethought example', which is not what I'm doing.

My question is why you would want to characterize yourself in this
way, since in practice "freethinker" is a word telling people that if
they don't agree with your opinions, they are at best dogmatic and at
worst stupid.

> Most freethinkers would be happy to have you form your own opinion,
even if
> they would have a private opinion about it.

What, exactly, is "freethinker" intended to mean in this sentence?
You give the impression it means someone who agrees with Aaron, not
someone who does their own thinking.

> Never said you needed to think what I think. Quote me, or eat your
words.

That, in practice, is what the word *means*. It means, in
practice, "my way or the highway--agree with me or be an idiot." That
is why people use the word, so far as I can see, but also why they
should not, or should at least expect people to sneer back at them if
they insist on so doing. It's a way of being condescending without
being forced to admit you are being condescending, and in that
respect is just like being "saved". It's preachy and obnoxious in
precisely the same way.

> > It's a description of a worldview, nothing more
> >
> > > or less. It's ony propaganda to those who may be implicated by
it
> >
> > (I'm not
> >
> > > saying you are).
> >
> > Propaganda, and offensive.
>
> To you. Sorry that expressing my worldview is offensive to you.

Claiming to think cannot be a worldview, so you are, in fact,
using "freethinker" to mean a person who holds certain views. You
therefore are implicitly claiming that holding those views means you
are a free thinker, and not holding them means you are either an
enslaved thinker, or not a thinker at all. In the same way, saying
you are saved also says other people are going to hell, which the
other people could, possibly, find to be annoying. My own feeling
about an implicit claim, which this is, that you think more clearly
than your interlocutors is to ask that it be demonstrated in
practice; and you could start by demonstrating clarity of thought
abour what you meant when you said being a freethinker was
your "worldview", and what implications that holds.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> On Wednesday 07 July 2004 07:29 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> > I reject out of hand the idea I must believe what you
> > believe, or not be a free thinker; the notion is patently
offensive.
>
> Another thing-- where in the definition of freethought is the
explicit, or
> even implicit idea that all 'freethinker' must come to the *same*
conclusions
> about topic X ?

You gave it in your very own definition, which quoted Addison to the
effect that "freethinker" was a synonym for "atheist". This is, in
fact, the only meaning of the word which seems to actually be found
in practice. Have you ever met a theist who called themselves
a "freethinker"? The word seems to be attractive to some for
precisely the reason I object to it, which is that it is propaganda,
a kind of linguistic bait and switch.

> You whole argument dissolves into a pointless rant when you
consider this,
> plus the fact that I never said anything whatsoever about anyone
(least of
> all you, Gene) *having* to believe what I believe.

I'd like, at this point, for you to exercise some thought, freely if
possible, on the question I am raising. I don't see any thought here;
I see pejorative characterizations like "pointless rant". It may be a
rant, but if so, one someone should have directed your way before
now, because it isn't pointless. The word is likely to give offense,
and if you do not intend to be offensive, the obvious solution is not
to use it. But I think to some extent it is meant to give offense,
since it makes a contentious claim; and intending to give offense and
then taking umbrage and climbing on your high horse when it is taken
is absurd. One can easily call someone "Scottish" only to find they
prefer to be called "Scots", or use the word "schmuck" in the
presence of someone whose bubbe boxed his ears when he used it as a
boy. You can even tell them "get a life" if they insist on being
offended; however please don't do that if you *knew* they would be
offended.

> Like I said before, point me to a direct quote where this is
stated, or
> realize that you've been carrying on a conversation with yourself,
and
> decided to dump on me.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Now you are all offended
because I've pointed out that many people (it's not just me, you
should know) don't like the word. Why not just absorb that
information, and decide whether, in the future, you prefer to pull
people's noses or leave the probosci unpulled.

Gene-

You have made some excellent points here. I see what you mean about the
potential for the word 'freethinker' to cause offense.

So, next time I use it, it will be to deliberately offend appropriate
targets !!! ;) (and I do think that there are 'non-free' thinkers)

For example, I might respond to someone who asks me (as I have been asked)
'What congregation do you attend', that I am a 'freethinker', because I think
they are making an offensive assumption that one ought not make about another
human (to me, it's offensive to assume that one is a theist and evidence of
both co-dependence in the questioner, plus baiting, in which case the
implication that they are a trapped thinker is apt). One might counter that
two offenses don't correct the situation, but in this case, I think it might
give the questioner pause and reflection on what it is they are asking....in
that sense, it's an appropriate response.

That being said, without knowledge of what you believe, I certainly didn't
*mean* to offend *you*. Please accept my apology if I have. And for what it's
worth, I don't regard you as a trapped individual. Any more than I am
trapped.

Anyway, perhaps 'skeptical secular humanist' is best for me.

Any comments, while you are at it, on the inherent condescension of the term
'Pro-Life' ?

Best,
Aaron.

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 10:23 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> wrote:
> > Freethinker \Free"think`er\, n.
> > One who speculates or forms opinions independently of the
> > authority of others; esp., in the sphere or religion, one who
> > forms opinions independently of the authority of revelation
> > or of the church; an unbeliever; -- a term assumed by deists
> > and skeptics in the eighteenth century.
> >
> > Atheist is an old-fashioned word: I'm a freethinker,
> > child. --Addison.
> >
> > Syn: Infidel; skeptic; unbeliever. See Infidel.
> >
> > That's what I'm going on, definition wise. Of course, your argument
>
> applies
>
> > partially, but only to those who feel they must follow the
>
> freethinker's
>
> > example.
>
> My objection is not to the hypothetical possibility that someone uses
> the word according to the first dictionary definition above, but to
> the sad linguistic fact that no one does, and Mr. Addison's usage is
> in fact what the word really means. It becomes a kind of bait and
> switch routine, whereby you are promised thought and end up with a
> particular opinion which is required as the outcome of your thoughts.
>
> Or the rare case when a freethinker tries to force other's to follow
>
> > the 'freethought example', which is not what I'm doing.
>
> My question is why you would want to characterize yourself in this
> way, since in practice "freethinker" is a word telling people that if
> they don't agree with your opinions, they are at best dogmatic and at
> worst stupid.
>
> > Most freethinkers would be happy to have you form your own opinion,
>
> even if
>
> > they would have a private opinion about it.
>
> What, exactly, is "freethinker" intended to mean in this sentence?
> You give the impression it means someone who agrees with Aaron, not
> someone who does their own thinking.
>
> > Never said you needed to think what I think. Quote me, or eat your
>
> words.
>
> That, in practice, is what the word *means*. It means, in
> practice, "my way or the highway--agree with me or be an idiot." That
> is why people use the word, so far as I can see, but also why they
> should not, or should at least expect people to sneer back at them if
> they insist on so doing. It's a way of being condescending without
> being forced to admit you are being condescending, and in that
> respect is just like being "saved". It's preachy and obnoxious in
> precisely the same way.
>
> > > It's a description of a worldview, nothing more
> > >
> > > > or less. It's ony propaganda to those who may be implicated by
>
> it
>
> > > (I'm not
> > >
> > > > saying you are).
> > >
> > > Propaganda, and offensive.
> >
> > To you. Sorry that expressing my worldview is offensive to you.
>
> Claiming to think cannot be a worldview, so you are, in fact,
> using "freethinker" to mean a person who holds certain views. You
> therefore are implicitly claiming that holding those views means you
> are a free thinker, and not holding them means you are either an
> enslaved thinker, or not a thinker at all. In the same way, saying
> you are saved also says other people are going to hell, which the
> other people could, possibly, find to be annoying. My own feeling
> about an implicit claim, which this is, that you think more clearly
> than your interlocutors is to ask that it be demonstrated in
> practice; and you could start by demonstrating clarity of thought
> abour what you meant when you said being a freethinker was
> your "worldview", and what implications that holds.
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Gene,

In replying to Aaron, you wrote two statements:

"My objection is not to the hypothetical possibility that someone uses
the word according to the first dictionary definition above, but to
the sad linguistic fact that no one does..."

and then, in a follow-up:

"The word is likely to give offense, and if you do not intend to be
offensive, the obvious solution is not to use it."

The word, in this instance, was "free-thinker". But I remember
(vividly) the flare-up on MMM where you used the term "tone-deaf". I
reacted (I can't remember if others did as well, maybe, maybe not)
that it was a term that was quite likely to give offense to musicians
(maybe others as well), regardless of whatever dictionary definition
you proposed (which you did).

Can you see that, to a third party, what you now propose to Aaron is
very much in the same character? I certainly do. I don't bring this up
because it still bothers me, because I figure it is just part of your
nature, and I accept that. But I find it inconsistant for you to
chastise Aaron for a behavior that looks - barring any
electron-microscope-splitting-of-hairs - nigh well the same.

Cheers,
Jon

P.S. I'm reminded this evening, by my listening, that if I were to
emulate a past composer I probably wouldn't be stepping back so far:
I'd probably want to find a Vulcan mind-meld of Sir Charles Villiers
Stanford, Sir Edward Elgar, and Ralph Vaughn-Williams (can't remember
if he's a sir). But I better stick to my own stuff, as they do it
better and it's been done...

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 02:20 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > Carl, can you give an example of being 'evangelizing' about
> > science? I would guess you'd be talking about Dawkins or
> > someone.
>
> No, I wasn't thinking of Dawkins' type. You know, just the
> annoying type that can't eat dinner with a Christian without
> confronting them.

Funny. I've experienced the exact opposite. But I'm sure what you say exists.

But, here's my problem--the nation's rural radio stations are filled with
anti-evolutionary propaganda. And to me, that's like hearing on the radio
that the earth is flat. I cannot abide lies of this sort. So, depending on
the case in question, I condone challenges to the predominant Judeo-Christian
paradigm. I condone challenging lies and purveyors of lies. If these people
feel free to present their views, why must I feel ashamed of broadcasting
mine? Because it's the minority view?

Fuck that. I've read far too much Nietzsche not to resonate with the idea that
the world is brimming over with lies and liars. Especially from purveyors of
the most fashionable, latest metaphysics. L. Ron Hubbard. The 'Left Behind'
series. Carlos Casteneda.

Believe me, skeptics/doubters/critical-thinkers are the *vast minority*.
College educated folk are still political liabilities. Just look at the way
are politicians are scrutinized and chastized if they profess no belief in
God (like Jesse Ventura in Minnesota did). Or how articles were written about
Gov. Dean's lack of clarity about his personal religious views were a
liability.

I get really really pissed off at anti-science rhetoric, and that includes
cultural relativism from the far-left of the sort that equates science with
'white european mythology'. To me, that perpetrates the current
anti-intellectual trend in the US, and also in some European corners.

This anti-intellectual trend is visible when people said of Bush 'I like
him--he's very plain spoken--like me', and responded to Gore with 'He's to
uppity'.

The irony is that the 'Paul Feyerabend'-like view of science that comes from
the far-left, etc. and the feminist revisionists, etc. (i.e. those who view
science as 'phallic' and 'aggressive'), adds fuel to the stupor of the
already ignorant populous that pushes for things like Biblical verses being
posted at the Grand Canyon, instead of geological explanations. And it helps
what they theoretically *don't* want--the likes of Bush in office, pulling
the strings and *actually* being the aggressive white males of their worst
nightmares.

Hey, leftists, you want to target someone? Target the Bush clan, not the
geeky, nerdy, pocket protector wearing scientists who seek to bring truth to
the table via a time-tested method that was good enough for Galileo,
Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, and *gasp*, Marie Curie, a woman.

Of course, if you're enough of a relativist, you'll have your head up your ass
so far that none of this will matter. Instead of seeing science as the great
political *leveller* and *equalizer* (witness the genetic proof that whites
and blacks are inherently equal, and that there is no genetic basis for any
of the arguments for racism), they will instead on viewing it as yet another
way for white male europeans to have hegemony over the rest of the world
populus.

(I'm interested in seeing who in these parts will now call me a Nazi, or,
directly or indirectly, a pro-dead-white-male oppressor.)

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Hi Aaron,

Let me reply out-of-order - from the end of your post:

> (I'm interested in seeing who in these parts will now call me a
Nazi, or,
> directly or indirectly, a pro-dead-white-male oppressor.)

Well, I won't (at this occasion), but you're pretty worked up - have
wine with dinner tonight? :)

But, seriously:

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> I condone challenging lies and purveyors of lies. If these people
> feel free to present their views, why must I feel ashamed of
broadcasting
> mine?

Isn't there a difference between presenting one's views, and
challenging others? Seems one is a function of self-expression,
whereas the other is an agressive move _against_ another. I'm not
saying you should or should not pursue that path, but I see two
different behaviors, where you _seem_ to (I could be misreading)
present it as one.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> For example, I might respond to someone who asks me (as I have been
asked)
> 'What congregation do you attend', that I am a 'freethinker',
because I think
> they are making an offensive assumption...

I can see how this could be useful, but what if he wonders where the
Church of Free Thought meets? You could be marked down as probably
some kind of New Thought or Unitarian type of obscure vintage.

> Any comments, while you are at it, on the inherent condescension of
the term
> 'Pro-Life' ?

It's exactly the kind of tendentious propagandizing I loathe. "Anti-
abortion" is honest and precise, and if you are against abortions you
should be willing to say so. "Pro-life" is meaningless; even a Jain
eats vegetables.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> The word, in this instance, was "free-thinker". But I remember
> (vividly) the flare-up on MMM where you used the term "tone-deaf". I
> reacted (I can't remember if others did as well, maybe, maybe not)
> that it was a term that was quite likely to give offense to
musicians
> (maybe others as well), regardless of whatever dictionary definition
> you proposed (which you did).
>
> Can you see that, to a third party, what you now propose to Aaron is
> very much in the same character? I certainly do.

I don't. "Tone deaf" was literally correct about the nature of
someone who really cannot tell the difference between one tuning and
another. It is not a tendentious, intellectually dishonest attempt at
manipulation of language, like "freethinker" or "pro-life."

I don't bring this up
> because it still bothers me, because I figure it is just part of
your
> nature, and I accept that. But I find it inconsistant for you to
> chastise Aaron for a behavior that looks - barring any
> electron-microscope-splitting-of-hairs - nigh well the same.

I despise the kinds of things I despise, which may not seem different
to you than the kinds of things you think I ought to despise, but the
difference is clear and important to me.

> P.S. I'm reminded this evening, by my listening, that if I were to
> emulate a past composer I probably wouldn't be stepping back so far:
> I'd probably want to find a Vulcan mind-meld of Sir Charles Villiers
> Stanford, Sir Edward Elgar, and Ralph Vaughn-Williams (can't
remember
> if he's a sir).

I love Elgar and Vaughan Williams, but never got fired up over
Stanford. I'm not quite sure what an English mind-meld would have
produced, but it sounds interesting. Soviet "thinking" at one point
decided composers should be good communists and work together, so
Kachaturian and Shostakovich had to produce a joint work. I've never
heard it; the word on the street is that it isn't very good.

But I better stick to my own stuff, as they do it
> better and it's been done...

If you want to write Elgar's Symphony #4 in magic for us, go for it!
It's never been done, and it's concievable people could learn to play
it.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> > (I'm interested in seeing who in these parts will now call me a
> Nazi, or,
> > directly or indirectly, a pro-dead-white-male oppressor.)
>
> Well, I won't (at this occasion), but you're pretty worked up - have
> wine with dinner tonight? :)

I suggest he kick back, put on some microtonal music, and read that
wonderful classic, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity".

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I don't. "Tone deaf" was literally correct about the nature of
> someone who really cannot tell the difference between one tuning and
> another.

Literally correct, maybe, but also further down the list of common
usage than the phrase as an insult.

> the difference is clear and important to me.

I am looking at it from other people's perspectives as well, rather
than a "me first" view. You are way too smart to not have seen a
phrase like that as injurious, but when you're driving, everyone
better get outta the way!

The hairs have been split into nano-threads, we better leave them
there to be swept up later...

> I love Elgar and Vaughan Williams, but never got fired up over
> Stanford.

I'm probably more warmed than fired up; maybe more nostalgic than
anything.

> I'm not quite sure what an English mind-meld would have
> produced, but it sounds interesting.

Unless it just came out like another dread pudding!

> Soviet "thinking" at one point
> decided composers should be good communists and work together, so
> Kachaturian and Shostakovich had to produce a joint work. I've never
> heard it; the word on the street is that it isn't very good.

My wife and I had a remarkable experience in 1992: we heard a premiere
of a piece Prokofiev wrote in 1938 (premiere in the West, with only
one abridged performance in Russia in 1966). It is an enormous
cantata, with huge orchestra, chorus, military band, 6 accordians, and
narrator! To luck into this, in a spectacular rendition by the
Philharmonia Orch with Neeme Jarvi, was simply extraordinary.

Here was music that you knew you must have heard, somewhere, somehow,
but it was just the essence of Prok., and it was all new. Years and
years after his death. Full of silly propaganda (it is the 'October'
Cantata, in celebration of the Revolution), but great orchestrations
and colors. The recording (done shortly after we saw the performance)
is available on Chandos.

> If you want to write Elgar's Symphony #4 in magic for us, go for it!
> It's never been done, and it's concievable people could learn to play
> it.

I'm sure they could just as I'm sure they wouldn't! :) BTW, there was
a nice novel, "Gerontius", that won an English lit prize a few years
back; a semi-fictional account of travels of Elgar at the end of his
life, taking a steamship to the Amazon, and ruminating on a life in
music. Quite a good look at an aging artist.

Cheers,
Jon

> College educated folk are still political liabilities.
> Just look at the way are politicians are scrutinized
> and chastized if they profess no belief in God (like
> Jesse Ventura in Minnesota did). Or how articles were
> written about Gov. Dean's lack of clarity about his
> personal religious views were a liability.
>
> I get really really pissed off at anti-science rhetoric,
> and that includes cultural relativism from the far-left
> of the sort that equates science with 'white european
> mythology'. To me, that perpetrates the current anti-
> intellectual trend in the US, and also in some European
> corners.
//
>
> The irony is that the 'Paul Feyerabend'-like view of
> science that comes from the far-left, etc. and the
> feminist revisionists, etc. (i.e. those who view science
> as 'phallic' and 'aggressive'), adds fuel to the stupor
> of the already ignorant populous that pushes for things
> like Biblical verses being posted at the Grand Canyon,
> instead of geological explanations. And it helps what
> they theoretically *don't* want--the likes of Bush in
> office, pulling the strings and *actually* being the
> aggressive white males of their worst nightmares.
>
> Hey, leftists, you want to target someone? Target the
> Bush clan, not the geeky, nerdy, pocket protector
> wearing scientists who seek to bring truth to the table
> via a time-tested method that was good enough for Galileo,
> Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, and *gasp*,
> Marie Curie, a woman.

Yes, well for the record I agree with all of that. And
I bitterly hate feminism. Don't even get me started.

> Of course, if you're enough of a relativist, you'll
> have your head up your ass so far that none of this
> will matter. Instead of seeing science as the great
> political *leveller* and *equalizer* (witness the
> genetic proof that whites and blacks are inherently
> equal, and that there is no genetic basis for any
> of the arguments for racism),

I'm not familiar with that proof, but given our current
understanding of the workings of genes it sounds dubious.

-Carl

>>>Some ideas of Tegmark and Schmidhuber suggest that
>>>there is no need for the simulator.
>>
>> Can you clarify?
>
> According to Tegmark's TOE there is a physically real
> universe corresponding to every logically consistent
> mathematical structure. So there is also a
> Turing Machine running every possible program. I'm
> combining Tegmark and Schmidhuber here. :)
>
> Of course that Turing Machine could be seen as a
> simulator or perhaps as the Simulator. :)

I'm afraid don't know what a simulator is in this context.

>>> These discrete models seem to contradict Special
>>> Relativity because they assume universal time.
>>
>> Wolfram has a discussion of how one might get relativistic
>> spacetime out of a CA. It was later disputed by a review
>> I read in MAA, IIRC....
>
> That's very interesting. Special Relativity seems to
> suggest static view of spacetime like in the film
> "12 Monkeys". In this view the future is real and there
> is no "becoming". This is very common topic in the
> philosophy of time. Google for "Rietdijk Putnam Maxwell".

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/absolute.html
"What is at stake in the debate on the ontological status of
Minkowski spacetime constitutes perhaps the greatest
intellectual challenge the human race has ever faced: if
reality is a 4D world then the time dimension, like the space
dimensions, is entirely given which means that all moments of
time are given. As all events of spacetime are equally
existent there is no objective (ontological) difference
between past, present, and future events; therefore our lives
are predetermined and free will is nothing more than just a
persistent illusion."

What utter nonsense. Relativistic spacetime does not encode
all possible events, only all possible locations and times
events can occur.

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/VPetkov.html

Perhaps what I said about science eating analytic philosophy
is wrong. If philosophers can take something as elegant as
Special Relativity and so completely confuddle it 100 years
later, there is no limit to what they can do.

Special Relativity is in fact the first great theory of
the information-theoretical universe. It says the nature
of information transfer dictates reality.

> There are also logical arguments for the unreality of
> the passage of time such as McTaggart's paradox.

I'm not familiar with this paradox. Can you sketch it
briefly?

> I don't see how computers could simulate static blocks
> of spacetime.

If the discrete model is right, computers can simulate
anything, with perfection.

-Carl

a friend of mine recently was complaining that the term pro-abortion was
not used. hence was not honest in the same way you state here. although it
would be ridiculous to state some people as anti-life. I am not pro-life
to confuse the issue here

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>
>
> It's exactly the kind of tendentious propagandizing I loathe. "Anti-
> abortion" is honest and precise, and if you are against abortions you
> should be willing to say so. "Pro-life" is meaningless; even a Jain
> eats vegetables.
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> >>> These discrete models seem to contradict Special
> >>> Relativity because they assume universal time.
> >>
> >> Wolfram has a discussion of how one might get relativistic
> >> spacetime out of a CA. It was later disputed by a review
> >> I read in MAA, IIRC....
> >
> > That's very interesting. Special Relativity seems to
> > suggest static view of spacetime like in the film
> > "12 Monkeys". In this view the future is real and there
> > is no "becoming". This is very common topic in the
> > philosophy of time. Google for "Rietdijk Putnam Maxwell".
>
> http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/absolute.html
> "What is at stake in the debate on the ontological status of
> Minkowski spacetime constitutes perhaps the greatest
> intellectual challenge the human race has ever faced: if
> reality is a 4D world then the time dimension, like the space
> dimensions, is entirely given which means that all moments of
> time are given. As all events of spacetime are equally
> existent there is no objective (ontological) difference
> between past, present, and future events; therefore our lives
> are predetermined and free will is nothing more than just a
> persistent illusion."
>
> What utter nonsense.

I'm talking about the argument of Hilary Putnam in his paper "Time
and Physical Geometry" in Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

> Relativistic spacetime does not encode
> all possible events, only all possible locations and times
> events can occur.

What is that supposed to mean?

Do you believe in absolute simultaneity? That is ruled out by SR. If
there is no absolute simultaneity there is no universal time. And
that is a problem with discrete models.

> http://www.spacetimesociety.org/VPetkov.html
>
> Perhaps what I said about science eating analytic philosophy
> is wrong. If philosophers can take something as elegant as
> Special Relativity and so completely confuddle it 100 years
> later, there is no limit to what they can do.

This is just dissing philosophers for being philosophers.

> Special Relativity is in fact the first great theory of
> the information-theoretical universe. It says the nature
> of information transfer dictates reality.

How does this follow from the principle of relativity (laws of nature
are same in all inertial reference frames) and the absolute speed of
light?

> > There are also logical arguments for the unreality of
> > the passage of time such as McTaggart's paradox.
>
> I'm not familiar with this paradox. Can you sketch it
> briefly?

That's not possible. :)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

> > I don't see how computers could simulate static blocks
> > of spacetime.
>
> If the discrete model is right, computers can simulate
> anything, with perfection.

Anything? Continuous spacetimes?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...
>
> wrote:
>
> > What I believe feels more than a reaction, it's more
> > a secular humanism view, and I like that term, or
> > 'freethinker' for their greater generality.
>
> "Secular humanist" makes sense only if you are one,
> and "freethinker" is mere propaganda. Why not simply
> buy a sparkly t-shirt from Monz which says "I am cool,
> and way smarter than you" on it?

nah ... just get one with my name on it.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I'm sure they could just as I'm sure they wouldn't! :) BTW, there
was
> a nice novel, "Gerontius", that won an English lit prize a few years
> back; a semi-fictional account of travels of Elgar at the end of his
> life, taking a steamship to the Amazon, and ruminating on a life in
> music. Quite a good look at an aging artist.

There's something kind of tragic about the later Elgar, with his
strong reaction to the war and then the death of his wife--sort of
like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting. Here was the epitome of
Edwardian optimism--people were basically good, the world was clearly
getting better, Germans are some of his good musical friends, and so
forth. It all comes crashing down, and you hear the echos in his
later music.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Of course, if you're enough of a relativist, you'll
> > have your head up your ass so far that none of this
> > will matter. Instead of seeing science as the great
> > political *leveller* and *equalizer* (witness the
> > genetic proof that whites and blacks are inherently
> > equal, and that there is no genetic basis for any
> > of the arguments for racism),
>
> I'm not familiar with that proof, but given our current
> understanding of the workings of genes it sounds dubious.

We do know that genetically speaking there isn't any such thing as a
white race and certainly no such thing as a black race, and that
genetic variations within small groups are large compared to the gene
pool as a whole. Humans are not, genetically speaking, widely varied,
being of recent vintage. The superficial characteristics which are so
striking, at least to us, don't seem to amount to much more than
cosmetics.

In the preface to Kingsblood Royal, Sinclair Lewis poured derision on
the whole idea of race, regarding it as a human invention with no
real basis. This opinion, unusual for his time, has now become a
scientific commonplace.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> There's something kind of tragic about the later Elgar, with his
> strong reaction to the war and then the death of his wife--sort of
> like Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting. Here was the epitome of
> Edwardian optimism--people were basically good, the world was clearly
> getting better, Germans are some of his good musical friends, and so
> forth. It all comes crashing down, and you hear the echos in his
> later music.

For this reason the Cello Concerto is heart-breaking: an old man in
the twilight of his career, mourning the loss of loved ones and
watching his country slide from the hey-days of empire.

Anyhow, you've pinpointed the poignancy of his later years, and this
is all recounted (based on a lot of factual material) as he ruminates
over his life on this boat journey. If you're interested:

Gerontius
by James Hamilton-Paterson
http://tinyurl.com/2nsnj

Cheers,
Jon

> > > Of course, if you're enough of a relativist, you'll
> > > have your head up your ass so far that none of this
> > > will matter. Instead of seeing science as the great
> > > political *leveller* and *equalizer* (witness the
> > > genetic proof that whites and blacks are inherently
> > > equal, and that there is no genetic basis for any
> > > of the arguments for racism),
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that proof, but given our current
> > understanding of the workings of genes it sounds dubious.
>
> We do know that genetically speaking there isn't any such
> thing as a white race and certainly no such thing as a
> black race,

You're referring perhaps to the recent article by
Michael J. Bamshad and Steve E. Olson in Scientific
American? Totally unconvincing.

> Humans are not, genetically speaking, widely varied,
> being of recent vintage.

And being generally inbred.

> The superficial characteristics which are so
> striking, at least to us, don't seem to amount to much
> more than cosmetics.

They ammount to preferential breeding, which is
probably significant.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > and you might be glad you did:
> > > >
> > > > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1
> > > > http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html
> > >
> > > That stuff is all cool, and some of it has
> > > already been demonstrated. Obviously any
> > > discrete model will have to make predictions
> > > very similar to those of QM.
> >
> > But you also said deterministic.
>
> Yes; it could be deterministic at a lower level.

Carl, I don't know how much QM philosophy you've read, but if you do
assume intrinsic determinism, then the Bell-inequality-violating
experiments imply superluminal causal connection, which means that in
some reference frame, an event in the future is causing an event in
the past. Isn't this fatal for the "discrete/computational" model?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 July 2004 07:29 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> > I reject out of hand the idea I must believe what you
> > believe, or not be a free thinker; the notion is patently
offensive.
>
> Another thing-- where in the definition of freethought is the
explicit, or
> even implicit idea that all 'freethinker' must come to the *same*
conclusions
> about topic X ?
>
> You whole argument dissolves into a pointless rant when you
consider this,
> plus the fact that I never said anything whatsoever about anyone
(least of
> all you, Gene) *having* to believe what I believe.
>
> Like I said before, point me to a direct quote where this is
stated, or
> realize that you've been carrying on a conversation with yourself,
and
> decided to dump on me.
>
> I'm confused as all hell where you drummed up the subtext you did
in our
> communications on the matter....

Me too, Aaron. Me too.

> > I'm confused as all hell where you drummed up the
> > subtext you did in our communications on the matter....
>
> Me too, Aaron. Me too.

I suspect Gene is coming from the same sort of
situation you are, Aaron, but from the other side...
I peg him for a theist, surrounded by aetheists.
If so, you can read the post you wrote about
anti-scientific thinking in America and get an
idea of how Gene might have gotten riled up.

-Carl

> > > > > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1
> > > > > http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html
> > > >
> > > > That stuff is all cool, and some of it has
> > > > already been demonstrated. Obviously any
> > > > discrete model will have to make predictions
> > > > very similar to those of QM.
> > >
> > > But you also said deterministic.
> >
> > Yes; it could be deterministic at a lower level.
>
> Carl, I don't know how much QM philosophy you've read,
> but if you do assume intrinsic determinism, then the
> Bell-inequality-violating experiments imply superluminal
> causal connection, which means that in some reference
> frame, an event in the future is causing an event in
> the past. Isn't this fatal for the "discrete/computational"
> model?

It sounds more fatal for Relativity.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> > Most freethinkers would be happy to have you form your own
opinion,
> even if
> > they would have a private opinion about it.
>
> What, exactly, is "freethinker" intended to mean in this sentence?
> You give the impression it means someone who agrees with Aaron, not
> someone who does their own thinking.

This all has to be some kind of ill-natured joke or something, right?
How can you read all those posts and then come up with exactly the
opposite of the intended meaning?

> > Never said you needed to think what I think. Quote me, or eat
your
>> words.
>
> That, in practice, is what the word *means*. It means, in
> practice, "my way or the highway--agree with me or be an idiot."
That
> is why people use the word, so far as I can see, but also why they
> should not, or should at least expect people to sneer back at them
if
> they insist on so doing. It's a way of being condescending without
> being forced to admit you are being condescending, and in that
> respect is just like being "saved". It's preachy and obnoxious in
> precisely the same way.

Point 1 -- Aaron clearly wasn't using the word in this way, so cut
him some slack. How you can focus on one word like this while
ignoring everything else, I have no idea.

Point 2 -- I've never heard the word used this way. This whole thing
is coming so far out of left field, that I just can't believe it.

Point 3 -- I've always heard the word used as a pejorative, by
religious types. "Freethinker" is somewhat synonymous to "heretic" in
my experience. Since I don't believe in any given prescribed
religious doctrine, I'm surely a "heretic", and therefore
a "freethinker", according to all the usage of the latter word that
I've been exposed to. Are you now going to level all kinds of
ridiculous accusations at me?

> Claiming to think cannot be a worldview, so you are, in fact,
> using "freethinker" to mean a person who holds certain views.

??? This reminds me of some of the 'logic' used by the Church against
the 'freethinkers' that I've known about.

> You
> therefore are implicitly claiming that holding those views means
you
> are a free thinker, and not holding them means you are either an
> enslaved thinker, or not a thinker at all.

Are you out of your mind?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> In replying to Aaron, you wrote two statements:
>
> "My objection is not to the hypothetical possibility that someone
uses
> the word according to the first dictionary definition above, but to
> the sad linguistic fact that no one does..."
>
> and then, in a follow-up:
>
> "The word is likely to give offense, and if you do not intend to be
> offensive, the obvious solution is not to use it."
>
> The word, in this instance, was "free-thinker". But I remember
> (vividly) the flare-up on MMM where you used the term "tone-deaf". I
> reacted (I can't remember if others did as well, maybe, maybe not)
> that it was a term that was quite likely to give offense to
musicians
> (maybe others as well), regardless of whatever dictionary definition
> you proposed (which you did).
>
> Can you see that, to a third party, what you now propose to Aaron is
> very much in the same character? I certainly do. I don't bring this
up
> because it still bothers me, because I figure it is just part of
your
> nature, and I accept that. But I find it inconsistant for you to
> chastise Aaron for a behavior that looks - barring any
> electron-microscope-splitting-of-hairs - nigh well the same.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

I second Jon. And I'm chiming in on all this not to take sides, not
to be a pest, and not to offend anyone. I just want to help Gene step
outside himself for a moment, to think about this, and to return to
these lists a better communicator as a result. Because if he does,
we'll all benefit, including many people whose names aren't even
generally known . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > The word, in this instance, was "free-thinker". But I remember
> > (vividly) the flare-up on MMM where you used the term "tone-
deaf". I
> > reacted (I can't remember if others did as well, maybe, maybe not)
> > that it was a term that was quite likely to give offense to
> musicians
> > (maybe others as well), regardless of whatever dictionary
definition
> > you proposed (which you did).
> >
> > Can you see that, to a third party, what you now propose to Aaron
is
> > very much in the same character? I certainly do.
>
> I don't. "Tone deaf" was literally correct about the nature of
> someone who really cannot tell the difference between one tuning
and
> another. It is not a tendentious, intellectually dishonest attempt
at
> manipulation of language, like "freethinker" or "pro-life."

Unbelievable. You still don't get it? Why do you continue to
say "tendentious, intellectually dishonest attempt at manipulation of
language", when that's clearly not what Aaron intended, and yet fail
to see that *your* intent in saying "tone-deaf" could have come
across equally badly? Look, I *want* you to be productively
communicating with people on these lists. Is it possible that Jon and
I have something to tell you, which might honestly help? Or do you
truly believe that you already know and practice the best way to
communicate with people, and that anyone who takes your words the
wrong way is just not worth communicating with, but if you take
someone's words the wrong way it's their fault for using the wrong
words?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Special Relativity is in fact the first great theory of
> the information-theoretical universe. It says the nature
> of information transfer dictates reality.

Special relativity says nothing of the sort. Loop Quantum Gravity,
though, which is an attempt at unifying General Relativity with
Quantum Mechanics, however, does seem to be pointing toward such a
conclusion. But these are worlds, worlds, worlds apart.

ye ol action at a distance problem heh:)

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
> Carl, I don't know how much QM philosophy you've read, but if you do
> assume intrinsic determinism, then the Bell-inequality-violating
> experiments imply superluminal causal connection, which means that in
> some reference frame, an event in the future is causing an event in
> the past. Isn't this fatal for the "discrete/computational" model?
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > > Of course, if you're enough of a relativist, you'll
> > > have your head up your ass so far that none of this
> > > will matter. Instead of seeing science as the great
> > > political *leveller* and *equalizer* (witness the
> > > genetic proof that whites and blacks are inherently
> > > equal, and that there is no genetic basis for any
> > > of the arguments for racism),
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that proof, but given our current
> > understanding of the workings of genes it sounds dubious.
>
> We do know that genetically speaking there isn't any such thing as
a
> white race and certainly no such thing as a black race, and that
> genetic variations within small groups are large compared to the
gene
> pool as a whole. Humans are not, genetically speaking, widely
varied,
> being of recent vintage. The superficial characteristics which are
so
> striking, at least to us, don't seem to amount to much more than
> cosmetics.
>
> In the preface to Kingsblood Royal, Sinclair Lewis poured derision
on
> the whole idea of race, regarding it as a human invention with no
> real basis. This opinion, unusual for his time, has now become a
> scientific commonplace.

More to the point, race is a *cultural* invention. What's
called "white", and what's called "black", is very different in
Russia, for example, than it is here.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1
> > > > > > http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html
> > > > >
> > > > > That stuff is all cool, and some of it has
> > > > > already been demonstrated. Obviously any
> > > > > discrete model will have to make predictions
> > > > > very similar to those of QM.
> > > >
> > > > But you also said deterministic.
> > >
> > > Yes; it could be deterministic at a lower level.
> >
> > Carl, I don't know how much QM philosophy you've read,
> > but if you do assume intrinsic determinism, then the
> > Bell-inequality-violating experiments imply superluminal
> > causal connection, which means that in some reference
> > frame, an event in the future is causing an event in
> > the past. Isn't this fatal for the "discrete/computational"
> > model?
>
> It sounds more fatal for Relativity.
>
> -Carl

Special Relativity, including the relativity of simultaneity, is one
of our best-tested theories. You'd have to somehow account for all
the experimental tests that back up its predictions, and those of its
integration with QM into Quantum Field Theory, if you intend to throw
it out.

>>> Wolfram has a discussion of how one might get relativistic
>>> spacetime out of a CA. It was later disputed by a review
>>> I read in MAA, IIRC....
>>
>> That's very interesting. Special Relativity seems to
>> suggest static view of spacetime like in the film
>> "12 Monkeys". In this view the future is real and there
>> is no "becoming". This is very common topic in the
>> philosophy of time. Google for "Rietdijk Putnam Maxwell".
//
> I'm talking about the argument of Hilary Putnam in his
> paper "Time and Physical Geometry" in Journal of
> Philosophy 64 (1967).
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

I've skimmed this, and I'm still not sure what SR is
supposed to have to do with determinism, unfortunately.
I'd like to go deeper into this for my part of the
conversation, but unforch. I just can't -- I'm way
backed up on the other lists and its coming down to
a conflict with my job.

Honestly, I don't know how we all find the time for
these lists. One thing's for sure: I'm badly, badly
addicted. I'm like, sneaking off to the W.C. with my
laptop to read messages. Crazy! How ironic that
after having experimented with the majority of the
drugs of addiction, a freaking mailing list would get
me!

> > Relativistic spacetime does not encode
> > all possible events, only all possible locations
> > and times events can occur.
>
> What is that supposed to mean?

It means: having spacetime doesn't mean you loose
free will.

> Do you believe in absolute simultaneity? That is ruled
> out by SR. If there is no absolute simultaneity there
> is no universal time. And that is a problem with
> discrete models.

There might be a universal clock underneath. Or, there
might be ways of running discrete models in a
relativistic fashion.

> > http://www.spacetimesociety.org/VPetkov.html
> >
> > Perhaps what I said about science eating analytic
> > philosophy is wrong. If philosophers can take
> > something as elegant as Special Relativity and so
> > completely confuddle it 100 years later, there is
> > no limit to what they can do.
>
> This is just dissing philosophers for being philosophers.

I have no problem dinging stupidity, whether someone
calls it their job or not.

>> Special Relativity is in fact the first great theory of
>> the information-theoretical universe. It says the nature
>> of information transfer dictates reality.
>
>How does this follow from the principle of relativity
>(laws of nature are same in all inertial reference frames)
>and the absolute speed of light?

I'm not sure what in SR would break if the speed of light
were not constant, or if there were something such as
tachyons that moved faster. Not much, I suspect. I see
SR not as being about light, but rather as making a general
statement about a universe in which events don't happen
until you know about about them.

>>> There are also logical arguments for the unreality of
>>> the passage of time such as McTaggart's paradox.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with this paradox. Can you sketch it
>> briefly?
>
> That's not possible. :)
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

Aiyeyeye, that's quite a bit to digest. :(

>>> I don't see how computers could simulate static blocks
>>> of spacetime.
>>
>> If the discrete model is right, computers can simulate
>> anything, with perfection.
>
> Anything? Continuous spacetimes?

I said: if the discrete model were right.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I see
> SR not as being about light, but rather as making a general
> statement about a universe in which events don't happen
> until you know about about them.

SR makes no statements remotely like this. Maybe you're thinking of
certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or something. In
classical SR, events happen whether or not you or anyone else ever
knows about them.

> > I see SR as a statement about a universe in which
> > events don't happen
> > until you know about about them.
>
> SR makes no statements remotely like this. Maybe you're
> thinking of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or
> something. In classical SR, events happen whether or not
> you or anyone else ever knows about them.

No, I'm not thinking of QM, damnit. The relativity
principle does say this, where "you" is interpreted
to mean "anything".

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> Unbelievable. You still don't get it?

I don't see *any* effort on your part to understand what I am saying,
so I think you might ask if you get it.

Why do you continue to
> say "tendentious, intellectually dishonest attempt at manipulation
of
> language", when that's clearly not what Aaron intended, and yet
fail
> to see that *your* intent in saying "tone-deaf" could have come
> across equally badly?

Oh, please. If someone cannot tell the difference between a C major
triad in root position and an F minor triad in first inversion, why
snivel if someone uses the word "tone deaf"? They probably would
admit to being tone deaf, which is what a friend of mine would have
done, I know for a fact. You and Jon are on my case for no reason
which makes any sense, and I suggest you two knock it off.

Obviously a word which has a built-in component of propaganda about
it is a different kind of thing. There's nothing Orwellian about tone-
deaf; if anything whinging about it is the sort of attempt at
subversion of language and manufacture of guilt which I think is
objectionable.

Look, I *want* you to be productively
> communicating with people on these lists. Is it possible that Jon
and
> I have something to tell you, which might honestly help?

Yes, you are two bad-tempered, touchy people, just like me. We could
get together and form a 12-step program, Friends of Gene.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > I see SR as a statement about a universe in which
> > > events don't happen
> > > until you know about about them.
> >
> > SR makes no statements remotely like this. Maybe you're
> > thinking of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or
> > something. In classical SR, events happen whether or not
> > you or anyone else ever knows about them.
>
> No, I'm not thinking of QM, damnit. The relativity
> principle does say this, where "you" is interpreted
> to mean "anything".

You're misinformed, Carl. There is absolutely nothing like this in
Relativity, and in fact such a conception of reality was highly
antithetical to Einstein's thought.

Special relativity is founded on two principles and two principles
only. Someone just mentioned them here so I won't repeat them.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
>
> > Unbelievable. You still don't get it?
>
> I don't see *any* effort on your part to understand what I am
saying,
> so I think you might ask if you get it.
>
> Why do you continue to
> > say "tendentious, intellectually dishonest attempt at
manipulation
> of
> > language", when that's clearly not what Aaron intended, and yet
> fail
> > to see that *your* intent in saying "tone-deaf" could have come
> > across equally badly?
>
> Oh, please. If someone cannot tell the difference between a C major
> triad in root position and an F minor triad in first inversion, why
> snivel if someone uses the word "tone deaf"? They probably would
> admit to being tone deaf, which is what a friend of mine would have
> done, I know for a fact. You and Jon are on my case for no reason
> which makes any sense,

There is a good reason. Many, many, good, human-being reasons. Much
more than just the three of us.

> and I suggest you two knock it off.

For my part, I'm only trying to help you. I'm one of the few people
with the patience to even attempt to. I can't *force* you to accept
my help, but I think you can benefit greatly from it. And the benefit
is all I'm after.

> Obviously a word which has a built-in component of propaganda about
> it is a different kind of thing.

We've established that this was your perception of the word. We've
also established that that's not how the word was intended. Now take
note of these two facts.

Let's look at your use of "tone-deaf". This is a word that many young
music students hear when they are being slapped with a ruler. So some
people could feel hurt and offended by this term. We know that that's
not what you intended. Now take note of *these* two facts.

Can you now step outside your ego-shell and look at these two pairs
of facts? Do you not see a parallel?

> There's nothing Orwellian about tone-
> deaf;

Does something have to be Orwellian to be offensive?

> if anything whinging about it is the sort of attempt at
> subversion of language and manufacture of guilt which I think is
> objectionable.

Can you have such a low opinion of people, that you'd suppose that
they seek to "manufacture guilt"? While at the same time you took
something far outside the realm of what Aaron was actually saying and
made him feel guilty for (not even) saying it?

Is it only you who can truly feel offended, while anyone else who
says they feel offended is only saying so to "manufacture guilt"?

Surely you don't really think this way.

It's all simple misunderstanding.

So the key is, how can we communicate to lower the probability of
misunderstanding, and of being misunderstood?

It takes some thought, work, and practice. I know you can do it. And
the benefit will be great.

You're not buying it. Could there be a whole bunch of stuff, of
interactions with list members and ex-members, behind all this, that
you don't even know about? Maybe there's more at stake here than a
disagreement about a word's meaning? Is that within the realm of
possibility?

Can you at least believe me that I'm really trying to help people
(because I think there something really valuable in you and others
that can yield some wondrous results if true communication occurs),
and not trying to "manufacture guilt"?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > I see SR as a statement about a universe in which
> > > > events don't happen
> > > > until you know about about them.
> > >
> > > SR makes no statements remotely like this. Maybe you're
> > > thinking of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or
> > > something. In classical SR, events happen whether or not
> > > you or anyone else ever knows about them.
> >
> > No, I'm not thinking of QM, damnit. The relativity
> > principle does say this, where "you" is interpreted
> > to mean "anything".
>
> You're misinformed, Carl.

No, I'm not.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...>
wrote:
> > > > > I see SR as a statement about a universe in which
> > > > > events don't happen
> > > > > until you know about about them.
> > > >
> > > > SR makes no statements remotely like this. Maybe you're
> > > > thinking of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or
> > > > something. In classical SR, events happen whether or not
> > > > you or anyone else ever knows about them.
> > >
> > > No, I'm not thinking of QM, damnit. The relativity
> > > principle does say this, where "you" is interpreted
> > > to mean "anything".
> >
> > You're misinformed, Carl.
>
> No, I'm not.

OK, then, show me why a degree in physics and 10 years of further
intense study have led me astray. I'm looking forward to it.

>>>>>> I see SR as a statement about a universe in which
>>>>>> events don't happen until you know about about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> SR makes no statements remotely like this. Maybe you're
>>>>> thinking of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or
>>>>> something. In classical SR, events happen whether or not
>>>>> you or anyone else ever knows about them.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not thinking of QM, damnit. The relativity
>>>> principle does say this, where "you" is interpreted
>>>> to mean "anything".
>>>
>>> You're misinformed, Carl.
>>
>> No, I'm not.
>
> OK, then, show me why a degree in physics and 10 years of
> further intense study have led me astray. I'm looking
> forward to it.

You must have misunderstood me somewhere, not that any of the
above is very clear.

I didn't see the statement here of the two principles upon
which SR is based, but I have always taken them to be: the
relativity principle, which states that the laws of nature
should hold for all observers, and that the speed of light
in vacuo is a law of nature. This leads to the conclusion
that there is no universal reference frame for time or
space, that each observer maintains his own history of
events. In Einstein's own explanation, observers disagree
on the order of events depending on how information of the
event reaches them.

-Carl

hi Paul and Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > > > > > > http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/3/9/1
> > > > > > > http://w3.uwyo.edu/~wtg/infophys/node17.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That stuff is all cool, and some of it has
> > > > > > already been demonstrated. Obviously any
> > > > > > discrete model will have to make predictions
> > > > > > very similar to those of QM.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you also said deterministic.
> > > >
> > > > Yes; it could be deterministic at a lower level.
> > >
> > > Carl, I don't know how much QM philosophy you've read,
> > > but if you do assume intrinsic determinism, then the
> > > Bell-inequality-violating experiments imply superluminal
> > > causal connection, which means that in some reference
> > > frame, an event in the future is causing an event in
> > > the past. Isn't this fatal for the "discrete/computational"
> > > model?
> >
> > It sounds more fatal for Relativity.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> Special Relativity, including the relativity of simultaneity,
> is one of our best-tested theories. You'd have to somehow
> account for all the experimental tests that back up its
> predictions, and those of its integration with QM into
> Quantum Field Theory, if you intend to throw it out.

why would "an event in the future causing an event in
the past" be fatal for relativity? in relativity, there's
nothing special about the future: it's just another part
of space-time. an observer in certain parts of the
universe lives in our future and can see our present
as his past.

one of the reasons why it's so hard for science to
get a firm grip on the universe is that science is based
totally on observation, and we humans are limited to
observing only our puny little corner of the cosmos.

this is why i give more creedance to non-scientific
methods/thinking than most of the rest of you in this
discussion. the universe is way bigger and more
complicated than we will *ever* be able to know.

-monz

Carl Wrote:

> > I'm talking about the argument of Hilary Putnam in his
> > paper "Time and Physical Geometry" in Journal of
> > Philosophy 64 (1967).
> >
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/
>
> I've skimmed this, and I'm still not sure what SR is
> supposed to have to do with determinism, unfortunately.
> I'd like to go deeper into this for my part of the
> conversation, but unforch. I just can't -- I'm way
> backed up on the other lists and its coming down to
> a conflict with my job.

Chronogeometrical fatalism/determinism is different from determinism.
It just says that all of spacetime is already there. It is a
completed static block of existence. Indeterminism is possible in
this view.

> Honestly, I don't know how we all find the time for
> these lists. One thing's for sure: I'm badly, badly
> addicted. I'm like, sneaking off to the W.C. with my
> laptop to read messages. Crazy! How ironic that
> after having experimented with the majority of the
> drugs of addiction, a freaking mailing list would get
> me!

Read the lists once and only once a day. Reply at the same time.

> > > Relativistic spacetime does not encode
> > > all possible events, only all possible locations
> > > and times events can occur.
> >
> > What is that supposed to mean?
>
> It means: having spacetime doesn't mean you loose
> free will.

I'm a compatibilist anyway.

> > Do you believe in absolute simultaneity? That is ruled
> > out by SR. If there is no absolute simultaneity there
> > is no universal time. And that is a problem with
> > discrete models.
>
> There might be a universal clock underneath. Or, there
> might be ways of running discrete models in a
> relativistic fashion.

I suppose you might run discrete models so that only the actually
occurring events happen in a Lorentz invariant fashion. in this way
some possible events might violate SR but it doesn't matter because
they don't happen anyway.

> > > http://www.spacetimesociety.org/VPetkov.html
> > >
> > > Perhaps what I said about science eating analytic
> > > philosophy is wrong. If philosophers can take
> > > something as elegant as Special Relativity and so
> > > completely confuddle it 100 years later, there is
> > > no limit to what they can do.
> >
> > This is just dissing philosophers for being philosophers.
>
> I have no problem dinging stupidity, whether someone
> calls it their job or not.

Oh! You are dissing Petkov. I have no problem with that. :)

again:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

At least read the part about The Andromedean Invasion. It's the same
argument as that of Putnam's, Rietdijk's or Maxwell's but given by
none other than Roger Penrose himself. :)

> >> Special Relativity is in fact the first great theory of
> >> the information-theoretical universe. It says the nature
> >> of information transfer dictates reality.
> >
> >How does this follow from the principle of relativity
> >(laws of nature are same in all inertial reference frames)
> >and the absolute speed of light?
>
> I'm not sure what in SR would break if the speed of light
> were not constant, or if there were something such as
> tachyons that moved faster. Not much, I suspect. I see
> SR not as being about light, but rather as making a general
> statement about a universe in which events don't happen
> until you know about about them.

There is an interpretation of SR where only the events in the past
light cone are real and determined. This is the view of Howard Stein.
This has to mean that we see the night sky as it is, now.

If I send a light signal from earth into a mirror 3000000 kilometers
away in space it takes the light 10 seconds to reach the mirror and
another 10 seconds to come back from the mirror. If Stein is correct,
the event of reflection becomes real when the signal has come back to
me. But how did it come back to me if the reflection only just
happened 20 seconds after I sent the signal?

> >>> There are also logical arguments for the unreality of
> >>> the passage of time such as McTaggart's paradox.
> >>
> >> I'm not familiar with this paradox. Can you sketch it
> >> briefly?
> >
> > That's not possible. :)
> >
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/
>
> Aiyeyeye, that's quite a bit to digest. :(

I can relate. McTaggart still gives me headache. Fine chap he was.

> >>> I don't see how computers could simulate static blocks
> >>> of spacetime.
> >>
> >> If the discrete model is right, computers can simulate
> >> anything, with perfection.
> >
> > Anything? Continuous spacetimes?
>
> I said: if the discrete model were right.

??? Then they obviously aren't. What do you mean by "anything"?

Hi Carl,

> It seems feasible to write an expert system to
> recognize Godel sentences, let alone the possibility
> that a self-evolving AI would gain the same kind of
> "innate notion" that humans have. Of course, most
> humans get along fine ignoring Godel sentences, at
> least ones that are externally apparent.

Oh yes indeed you can probably do that sort of thing
I'm sure. The expert system gets trained by
feedback from a human who tells it when it gets
it right or not until it gets it right all the
time. In practice, getting it right
99.99999999 percent of the time would
be absolutely fine for an expert system.

You could do a neural net too. Same basic
idea, just a lot of feedback until
it gets it right.

But you would have no guarantee that it
would always recognise truth, because
you don't understand how it works. It is
just a whole lot of heuristic rules
and probabilities that when they work
together succeed in recognising true
statements with as high a probability
as you desire them to.

It would indeed be a great labour to try and
figure out a Godel sentence for such a program
that you would be able to guarantee that
it wouldn't be able to solve because you
would have to somehow reverse construct
an axiomatisation of its notion of truth
from a program that isn't based on axiomatics
at all. But how do you know that the
program does recognise truth in the
human sense? How do you ever know
that the probability for recognising
a true sentence is 100%
and not 99.9999999%?

Even if it recognises truth successfully
for a million proofs, it might
fail on the next one, low probability
but that just isn't good enough
here to be able to say that
it "understands" what truth is.

If you are able to prove that it recognises
truths then you should be able to figure
out what axiom system it is using or
implying for its proofs.

Or I suppose you could try to say - there exists some
finite program that is able to recognise truth
- but no human being will ever be able
to prove that it can recognise truth.

Well I don't know if that is concievable
or not. I rather suspect that maybe
some Turning type diagonalisation argument
could be used somehow to show it is
impossible. Perhaps Penrose
addresses it. But even if it were
there isn't really much use in such a program
if no-one, including the program itself
of course, can confirm that it understands
what truth is.

Humans seem to have an intrinsic idea of
what truth is and it really comes down
to whether you believe that that is
indeed valid, that we all have a touchstone
of what truth is.

Maybe a neural net or expert system
based on human feedback might eventually
come to say that it has such a
notion of truth too because only by doing
so could it well approximate human
behaviour about truth - one question
you could ask it is whether it
understands truth, and if it answers no
then you know it is unreliable.
So it would have to answer yes.
But then how could you ever believe it?

But - I'm not so up on this, maybe
Penrose addresses it more directly than
this. Do you remember whether he says
anything about it in Shadows of the Mind?
I've yet to read it but I look forward
to reading it soon.

> It means the mind shouldn't be taken as
> primary. Pyschoactive drugs, optical
> illusions, etc. should shake any faith
> that the mind is primary.

They don't, they are various ways of
disrupting how the mind works and if you
disrupt how the mind works then
the world will seem distorted.

Idealists don't say that
minds see clearly all the
time. In fact Berkely uses just this
sort of argument to support his
idealist case - if one can see things
in so many different ways, is there
then any world separate from the
perceptions of minds? Those same
things therefore can be used to shake
ones faith that the world is primary,
if used by an idealist. I wonder
if you know Bishop Berkeley's
dialogs?

His: "Three Dialogues
between Hylas and Philonous"

He uses this sort of argument a lot
to support his idealism. And the nice
thing too is that it is a rather entertaining
read as well, because of the way it is written.
It is many years since I read it but that
was one of my main introductions to philosohpy - we
did a philosophy class in which we went
through the dialogues, and read them
out in the class, taking turns at being
the characters, and then discussing the
dialog we had just read. It was one of my
favourite philosohy classes in my philosophy
degree.

There is something of an idea
around that philosophy is kind of linear
and progressive like science and maths
so that as time goes on old theories
are old fashioned and no longer apply
or are superseded by neater and better ways
of doing the same thing.

So history of philosophy has become
a kind of poor cousin of philosophy proper
in some circles, one feels. It gets
studied rather more for its historical interest
than for the ideas themselves.

But for myself, I think the old philosophers
are just as valid as the ones around
today, and that there is no need to apologise
for the way they do things. You can read
them fresh and get new insights into
philosophy just as you do with the newer
thinkers. It is more like a subject like
poetry in that respect. Or music indeed.
No-one says that poets of the nineteenth
century, say Keats, are superseded by
modern poets that write in more modern
idioms.

Even in Maths actually I feel that
it is sometimes insightful to study the history
of the subject, not to understand the
proofs, but to understand the context
for the proof and what gave rise to it,
and to give it more interest and life
by seeing it in its original setting.

> > I was also interested in Fredkins ideas
> > about a cellular automaton world.
> > There I thought it superfluous though
> > to add in the idea that it was a simulation
> > in an extremely complex computer in a larger
> > physical universe - that doesn't explain
> > anything at all, just like saying the
> > world is supported on turtles which will be
> > supported by more turtles indefinitely.

> Did Fredkin say that? I always thought
> the simulation *was* the universe. Maybe this
> is what Kalle was talking about...

Actually my memory isn't clear on that
point, I'd have to look it up. Certainly
someone did but whether it was him or
someone else following the same
line of investigation,
I'm not entirely sure.

Robert

On Friday 09 July 2004 09:06 am, Robert Walker wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> > It seems feasible to write an expert system to
> > recognize Godel sentences, let alone the possibility
> > that a self-evolving AI would gain the same kind of
> > "innate notion" that humans have. Of course, most
> > humans get along fine ignoring Godel sentences, at
> > least ones that are externally apparent.
>
> Oh yes indeed you can probably do that sort of thing
> I'm sure. The expert system gets trained by
> feedback from a human who tells it when it gets
> it right or not until it gets it right all the
> time. In practice, getting it right
> 99.99999999 percent of the time would
> be absolutely fine for an expert system.

The most successful AI systems still involve human feedback and subjectivity.
This in a way is proof the at least currently, strong AI is impossible. True
AI would be happening, when the human wasn't required in the equation, and
the machine had sentience.

> Humans seem to have an intrinsic idea of
> what truth is and it really comes down
> to whether you believe that that is
> indeed valid, that we all have a touchstone
> of what truth is.

George Bush doesn't. Pat Robertson doesn't. The NRA doesn't.

> But for myself, I think the old philosophers
> are just as valid as the ones around
> today, and that there is no need to apologise
> for the way they do things.

It's been said the entire history of Philosophy amounts to footnotes to
Plato....

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> > > It seems feasible to write an expert system to
> > > recognize Godel sentences, let alone the possibility
> > > that a self-evolving AI would gain the same kind of
> > > "innate notion" that humans have. Of course, most
> > > humans get along fine ignoring Godel sentences, at
> > > least ones that are externally apparent.
> >
> > Oh yes indeed you can probably do that sort of thing
> > I'm sure. The expert system gets trained by
> > feedback from a human who tells it when it gets
> > it right or not until it gets it right all the
> > time. In practice, getting it right
> > 99.99999999 percent of the time would
> > be absolutely fine for an expert system.
>
> The most successful AI systems still involve human feedback
> and subjectivity. This in a way is proof the at least
> currently, strong AI is impossible. True AI would be
> happening, when the human wasn't required in the equation,
> and the machine had sentience.

Actually -- just a quick note from the trenches
here -- that's not how expert systems work. Expert
systems are just symbolic systems full of rules,
hard-coded into them. If you're thinking of
training, you may be thinking of neural nets.

-Carl

> > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/
> >
> > I've skimmed this, and I'm still not sure what SR is
> > supposed to have to do with determinism, unfortunately.
> > I'd like to go deeper into this for my part of the
> > conversation, but unforch. I just can't -- I'm way
> > backed up on the other lists and its coming down to
> > a conflict with my job.
>
> Chronogeometrical fatalism/determinism is different from
> determinism. It just says that all of spacetime is
> already there. It is a completed static block of existence.
> Indeterminism is possible in this view.

Ah.

> > Honestly, I don't know how we all find the time for
> > these lists. One thing's for sure: I'm badly, badly
> > addicted. I'm like, sneaking off to the W.C. with my
> > laptop to read messages. Crazy! How ironic that
> > after having experimented with the majority of the
> > drugs of addiction, a freaking mailing list would get
> > me!
>
> Read the lists once and only once a day. Reply at the
> same time.

Sage advice, and it seems to work for Paul.

> > > > Relativistic spacetime does not encode
> > > > all possible events, only all possible locations
> > > > and times events can occur.
> > >
> > > What is that supposed to mean?
> >
> > It means: having spacetime doesn't mean you loose
> > free will.
>
> I'm a compatibilist anyway.

Well, why didn't you say so! (Kidding; I have no
idea who compatibilists are. But I suppose I can
check the Stanford encyclopedia. :)

> > > Do you believe in absolute simultaneity? That is ruled
> > > out by SR. If there is no absolute simultaneity there
> > > is no universal time. And that is a problem with
> > > discrete models.
> >
> > There might be a universal clock underneath. Or, there
> > might be ways of running discrete models in a
> > relativistic fashion.
>
> I suppose you might run discrete models so that only the
> actually occurring events happen in a Lorentz invariant
> fashion. in this way some possible events might violate
> SR but it doesn't matter because they don't happen anyway.

Wolfram hand-waves ideas for Lorentz transformations and
action-at-a-distance in CA.

> again:
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/
>
> At least read the part about The Andromedean Invasion.

That's the part I read.

> It's the same argument as that of Putnam's, Rietdijk's
> or Maxwell's but given by none other than Roger Penrose
> himself. :)

I don't follow how the meeting takes place at two different
times from the Andromeda reference frames, if it takes
place at a single point O on Earth and Earth is stationary
wrt Andromeda. Obviously, my SR is rusty.

> > I'm not sure what in SR would break if the speed of light
> > were not constant, or if there were something such as
> > tachyons that moved faster. Not much, I suspect. I see
> > SR not as being about light, but rather as making a general
> > statement about a universe in which events don't happen
> > until you know about about them.
>
> There is an interpretation of SR where only the events in
> the past light cone are real and determined. This is the
> view of Howard Stein. This has to mean that we see the
> night sky as it is, now.
>
> If I send a light signal from earth into a mirror 3000000
> kilometers away in space it takes the light 10 seconds to
> reach the mirror and another 10 seconds to come back from
> the mirror. If Stein is correct, the event of reflection
> becomes real when the signal has come back to me. But how
> did it come back to me if the reflection only just
> happened 20 seconds after I sent the signal?

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, but it elevates
the mind too high. The reflection becomes real just by
making itself 'known' to points in spacetime as it travels.

Even if we indulge Stein and elevate the mind, once again
we have the model-bootstrapping issue. The mind knows that
light travels at a certain speed, so it also knows that
the reflection existed before it struck your eye -- this
sort of bootstrapping extends the mind's powers of
observation, if you will -- it is a type of "observation".

> > >>> I don't see how computers could simulate static blocks
> > >>> of spacetime.
> > >>
> > >> If the discrete model is right, computers can simulate
> > >> anything, with perfection.
> > >
> > > Anything? Continuous spacetimes?
> >
> > I said: if the discrete model were right.
>
> ??? Then they obviously aren't.

Why not?

> What do you mean by "anything"?

Exactly anything that exists. Any thought, any event in
the universe, could be exactly repeated on a computer if
you had the right information. Of course, the simulation
would have to be bigger than the actual event -- the
hardware doing the simulation would have to cover more
nodes of the underlying universal CA than the original
event.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> This leads to the conclusion
> that there is no universal reference frame for time or
> space,

But there *is* an absolute spacetime -- space and time taken together
as a whole. This is analogous to the fact that, in classical physics,
there is no universal reference frame for "left" or "forwards", but
there *is* an absolute space.

> that each observer maintains his own history of
> events.

Actually, it's just that the way the absolute spacetime is *sliced*,
to yield the "space" and "time" for any given reference frame,
depends on the state of motion of that reference frame. No maintained
histories required, no observers either.

> In Einstein's own explanation, observers disagree
> on the order of events depending on how information of the
> event reaches them.

Wrong: It has nothing to do with how information of the event reaches
them, or even *whether* information of the event reaches them.

(In fact, the *appearance* of an object moving very rapidly with
respect to you is another question entirely, and the answer is not
given by simply describing the object in the observer's reference
frame according to Einstein's laws, but must rather employ an
objective account of how light rays travel. Evidently, the
description of events in Special Relativity is independent, and often
quite far from, the description of media that might be used to
communicate such events).

What I was objecting to was 'a universe in which events don't happen
until you know about about them . . . The relativity principle does
say this, where "you" is interpreted to mean "anything".' My
reactions to this are:

1. Though this does accurately describe many interpretations of
Quantum Mechanics, it's actually something Einstein bitterly railed
against. He believed very firmly in reality and all its features
existing (and being defined) independently of any act of observation
or knowing. This, much more than a belief in determinism, was a
primary reason he refused to believe in quantum theory.

2. Saying that relativity says this makes about as much sense, to me,
as saying that the Democratic party platform says this.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> this is why i give more creedance to non-scientific
> methods/thinking than most of the rest of you in this
> discussion. the universe is way bigger and more
> complicated than we will *ever* be able to know.

Perhaps, but certain "philosophies" (though now they're less tied to
the field of philosophy alone) about physical reality can be
logically proved to yield predictions which contradict with (some
pretty mind-boggling) experimental results. That's the sort
of "philosophical" area where rigorous thought has a role to play,
and non-scientific methods/thinking might fall short of a firm proof
or disproof. But yes, there could well be all kinds of stuff beyond
that where scientific methods/thinking can yield no insight. This
part of the discussion, to me, had a much narrower focus, though.

On Friday 09 July 2004 12:17 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > > It seems feasible to write an expert system to
> > > > recognize Godel sentences, let alone the possibility
> > > > that a self-evolving AI would gain the same kind of
> > > > "innate notion" that humans have. Of course, most
> > > > humans get along fine ignoring Godel sentences, at
> > > > least ones that are externally apparent.
> > >
> > > Oh yes indeed you can probably do that sort of thing
> > > I'm sure. The expert system gets trained by
> > > feedback from a human who tells it when it gets
> > > it right or not until it gets it right all the
> > > time. In practice, getting it right
> > > 99.99999999 percent of the time would
> > > be absolutely fine for an expert system.
> >
> > The most successful AI systems still involve human feedback
> > and subjectivity. This in a way is proof the at least
> > currently, strong AI is impossible. True AI would be
> > happening, when the human wasn't required in the equation,
> > and the machine had sentience.
>
> Actually -- just a quick note from the trenches
> here -- that's not how expert systems work. Expert
> systems are just symbolic systems full of rules,
> hard-coded into them. If you're thinking of
> training, you may be thinking of neural nets.

Yes, I knew that. I was thinking of relitively impressive applications like
David Cope's 'Experiments in musical intelligence' or whatever it's called.

Part of the reason for the success, if you read the description, is that he
weeds out the output by hand-picking the best results for public
display....now if the computer had sentience, it could 'hand-pick'...but it
doesn't and perhaps never will.

Neural nets alone sort of suck ass, I think. The only potential conscious
artificial entity will have physical autonomy and something akin to desire
(food, reproduction) to mimic human-like behavior. Certainly, I will bet my
1000th milkshake that no isolated desktop system will ever have sentience.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> Neural nets alone sort of suck ass, I think.

They're great, but they could be a lot greater if
NN researchers would spend more time experimenting
with new configurations and less time trying to
proove relatively useless results like how many
layers it takes to solve which classes of problems.

> The only
> potential conscious artificial entity will have physical
> autonomy and something akin to desire (food, reproduction)
> to mimic human-like behavior.

And that shouldn't, in principle, be hard to engineer.
Tilden's bots already adaptively seek solar power.

> Certainly, I will bet my
> 1000th milkshake that no isolated desktop system will
> ever have sentience.

What do you mean by isolated?

I'll bet you $1000, Euros or Yen, in that order,
that something no bigger than a human passes a Turing
test by 2055. Void if either of us is dead.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> The most successful AI systems still involve human feedback and
subjectivity.

Probably the single most convincing AI systems these days are chess-
playing programs, which clearly exhibit what at one time we would
have called highly intelligent behavior. How do they involve
subjectivity?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
> wrote:
>
> > The most successful AI systems still involve human feedback and
> subjectivity.
>
> Probably the single most convincing AI systems these days are chess-
> playing programs, which clearly exhibit what at one time we would
> have called highly intelligent behavior. How do they involve
> subjectivity?

Because I assume these chess-playing programs are:

1) rule-based programs
2) aren't psychologically motivated to win.
3) didn't program themselves to play chess.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and you know of a particular chess-playing
program that uses GA or neural nets, etc.

And one that feels the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.
;)

-A.

>> This leads to the conclusion
>> that there is no universal reference frame for time or
>> space,
>
> But there *is* an absolute spacetime -- space and time taken
> together as a whole. This is analogous to the fact that, in
> classical physics, there is no universal reference frame for
> "left" or "forwards", but there *is* an absolute space.

Yes.

>> that each observer maintains his own history of
>> events.
>
> Actually, it's just that the way the absolute spacetime is
> *sliced*, to yield the "space" and "time" for any given
> reference frame, depends on the state of motion of that
> reference frame. No maintained histories required, no
> observers either.

Nevertheless, two observers, which I am introducing,
will sometimes disagree on the order of events.

>> In Einstein's own explanation, observers disagree
>> on the order of events depending on how information of
>> the event reaches them.
>
> Wrong: It has nothing to do with how information of the
> event reaches them, or even *whether* information of the
> event reaches them.

I think observers would have a hard time describing an
event without the information reaching them, don't you?

> (In fact, the *appearance* of an object moving very
> rapidly with respect to you is another question entirely,
> and the answer is not given by simply describing the
> object in the observer's reference frame according to
> Einstein's laws, but must rather employ an objective
> account of how light rays travel. Evidently, the
> description of events in Special Relativity is
> independent, and often quite far from, the description
> of media that might be used to communicate such events).

Lost me here. Probably with the *appearance* bit.
Do you mean "how things seem" or "the first time something
shows up"? Can you give an example of this sort of
thing?

> What I was objecting to was 'a universe in which events
> don't happen until you know about about them . . . The
> relativity principle does say this, where "you" is
> interpreted to mean "anything".' My reactions to this
> are:
>
> 1. Though this does accurately describe many
> interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, it's actually
> something Einstein bitterly railed against. He
> believed very firmly in reality and all its features
> existing (and being defined) independently of any act
> of observation or knowing. This, much more than a
> belief in determinism, was a primary reason he refused
> to believe in quantum theory.

I don't particularly care about Einstein's problmes
with QM.

> 2. Saying that relativity says this makes about as
> much sense, to me, as saying that the Democratic party
> platform says this.

Nevertheless, I do believe this is a valid
interpretation of SR.

-Carl

> But you would have no guarantee that it
> would always recognise truth, because
> you don't understand how it works.

The same is true of other humans. Even
yourself -- you don't understand how you
work. Which is the whole point of this
thread, I guess.

> It is
> just a whole lot of heuristic rules
> and probabilities that when they work
> together succeed in recognising true
> statements with as high a probability
> as you desire them to.

Not as high as you want. Expert systems
and neural nets both hit plateaus which
further programming and further training
cannot breach. Human learning also
exhibits this behavior in many cases.

> It would indeed be a great labour to try and
> figure out a Godel sentence for such a program
> that you would be able to guarantee that
> it wouldn't be able to solve because you
> would have to somehow reverse construct
> an axiomatisation of its notion of truth
> from a program that isn't based on axiomatics
> at all. But how do you know that the
> program does recognise truth in the
> human sense?

Well, like I said, I don't think humans have
access to any magic, universal sense of truth.

> Even if it recognises truth successfully
> for a million proofs, it might
> fail on the next one, low probability
> but that just isn't good enough
> here to be able to say that
> it "understands" what truth is.

That's pretty high standards for understanding.

*I* don't understand what truth is. I can
regonize G in trivial cases, but as far as I
know more complicated Gs may be tricking me
on a regular basis.

> If you are able to prove that it recognises
> truths then you should be able to figure
> out what axiom system it is using or
> implying for its proofs.

What Godel showed was that no program of a
fixed size is always able to recognize the truth.

It may also be worth pointing out here that
finding an algorithm that produces a given
desired output can be a very hard problem. So
hard, in fact, that I think it *extremely*
unlikely any pure expert system will ever
pass a Turing test.

> Or I suppose you could try to say - there exists
> some finite program that is able to recognise
> truth - but no human being will ever be able
> to prove that it can recognise truth.

Once again, humans are irrelevant. Any proof
a human can write could be written by Hilbert's
automated proof-checker.

People really seem to have humans on the brain,
as it were. From where I'm sitting, humans are
at best impressive considering the fact that
they're not very impressive.

> But - I'm not so up on this, maybe
> Penrose addresses it more directly than
> this. Do you remember whether he says
> anything about it in Shadows of the Mind?
> I've yet to read it but I look forward
> to reading it soon.

No, unforch. It's been 10 years since I
read it.

> > It means the mind shouldn't be taken as
> > primary. Pyschoactive drugs, optical
> > illusions, etc. should shake any faith
> > that the mind is primary.
>
> They don't, they are various ways of
> disrupting how the mind works and if you
> disrupt how the mind works then
> the world will seem distorted.

But why should the intoxicated view be
"distorted", while the sober view is
raised to the level of defining reality?

> But for myself, I think the old philosophers
> are just as valid as the ones around
> today, and that there is no need to apologise
> for the way they do things. You can read
> them fresh and get new insights into
> philosophy just as you do with the newer
> thinkers. It is more like a subject like
> poetry in that respect. Or music indeed.
> No-one says that poets of the nineteenth
> century, say Keats, are superseded by
> modern poets that write in more modern
> idioms.

Certainly my favorite philosophy was done
in the classical period, and even slightly
earlier. Though I'm also rather fond of
some Nietzsche and Sartre. But I avoid
analytic philosophy like the plague.

> Even in Maths actually I feel that
> it is sometimes insightful to study the history
> of the subject, not to understand the
> proofs, but to understand the context
> for the proof and what gave rise to it,
> and to give it more interest and life
> by seeing it in its original setting.

I actually study it to understand the proofs. :)

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> > Probably the single most convincing AI systems these days are
chess-
> > playing programs, which clearly exhibit what at one time we would
> > have called highly intelligent behavior. How do they involve
> > subjectivity?
>
> Because I assume these chess-playing programs are:
>
> 1) rule-based programs
> 2) aren't psychologically motivated to win.
> 3) didn't program themselves to play chess.

I think most people would regard these as three reasons they do not
involve subjectivity.

Hi Aaron,

> George Bush doesn't. Pat Robertson doesn't. The NRA doesn't.

People can lose sight of the truth in a paritcular
area or indeed many areas. First they dissimulate
to others, then eventually they may lose sight
of what truth means even to themselves.

But everyone seems to have some notion of truth somewhere, and you
could hardly function very well in this world
without some bedrock of truth in your dealings
with it, at least recognising the truth of such things as the
direction of the pull of gravity and such like.

Not saying you have access to a magical understanding
of the world. But you can be truthful about your
own experience - that I experience the pull of
gravity as being in this direction, and point
in that direction. Maybe you are actually
spinning in a carousel and don't know it,
but you can be truthful about where
you think down is.

Ask them which way is down and I think you
will get a true answer unless something
hangs on it for them. People understand
truth when it is about things that they
have no great incentive for dissimulating about.

For mathematicians, normally they have that touchstone
of truth at least in mathematics. Never heard of
a mathematician who pretends to have a proof when
they know themselves that it isn't a proof.
(though I suppose it could happen).
Often that they make a mistake and think it is
a proof when it isn't - but they are being
truthful by saying that they think it is a
proof so they haven't lost sight of the truth,
there and given enough time and the opportunity
to distance themselves a bit and come back
to the proof and go through it carefully with a fresh eye
- or ask a colleague to do so, then they
can see the flaw if there is one..

Others have it in other areas. Maybe they
dissimulate sometimes about the weather
or something but there are things they
tell the truth about, and in those areas
they know what truth is.

Even the most evil of people as generally
regarded have this that they tell truth
about certain areas of their life, indeed they
may even be truthful quite generally
but just cruel with it as can happen.
That area of truthfulnes gives them
hope in the very long term - or maybe
only the very very very long term in
some cases but it is always there.
So they may come to see things
differently at some point, possibly
only after much personal suffering
in the interim.

Robert

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> People really seem to have humans on the brain,
> as it were. From where I'm sitting, humans are
> at best impressive considering the fact that
> they're not very impressive.

What's your standard of impressive if not human?
I think average human beings still do some pretty remarkable,
extremely difficult to get a computer to do things.

Not to metion Leonardo, Bach, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Nietzsche,
Toby Twining.....

> But why should the intoxicated view be
> "distorted", while the sober view is
> raised to the level of defining reality?

This is a question I've always wondered about...and a good one.
'In vino est veritas'.....

-Aaron.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker"
<robertwalker@n...> wrote:

> For mathematicians, normally they have that touchstone
> of truth at least in mathematics. Never heard of
> a mathematician who pretends to have a proof when
> they know themselves that it isn't a proof.
> (though I suppose it could happen).

It would be asking for humiliation. Why ask when it is likely to come
to you anyway, sooner or later?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
>
> > > Probably the single most convincing AI systems these days are
> chess-
> > > playing programs, which clearly exhibit what at one time we would
> > > have called highly intelligent behavior. How do they involve
> > > subjectivity?
> >
> > Because I assume these chess-playing programs are:
> >
> > 1) rule-based programs
> > 2) aren't psychologically motivated to win.
> > 3) didn't program themselves to play chess.
>
> I think most people would regard these as three reasons they do not
> involve subjectivity.

Right. That's why they needed to be programmed by a subjective human.
And so they 'involve subjectivity'.

You have to understand my original context: I was thinking of Cope,
who hand picks the best results from his algorithms, a subjective act.

My original statement was thus: 'The best programs have a subjective
(human user who monitors) component', which, in my view, is hardly
near the goal of AI, as impressive as Cope's results have been.

-Aaron.

Hi Carl,

> It may also be worth pointing out here that
> finding an algorithm that produces a given
> desired output can be a very hard problem. So
> hard, in fact, that I think it *extremely*
> unlikely any pure expert system will ever
> pass a Turing test.

Oh I agree, from what I've seen nothing in the field
of computing is anywhere near achieving this,
of being able to behave like a human, except
in specially set up situations where
rules are imposed that make it easy for
the computer to "bluff" its way as a
purported human.

Though, Penrose's argument doesn't actually
show it to be impossible to get good mimics
of human understanding that might
deceive a human for a long time.
But it does give a test that could
be used - if you have a program and have
access to its programming, you will
be able to construct a Godel sentence
for it. Give it as long as it needs
to try and see if it is true, and
same with a human, where of course
the human has to be a mathematician
I suppose.

To even out the field,
give the human access to whatever
they need in the way of tools to analyse
the statement - can do the same with
teh comptuer program but it won't do ti
any good to have them, because the
problem is that it won't understand
it at the meta level.

So in that sense he shows that
no program can ever pass the
turing argument in full generality.
But whether it could pass it
in a more limited sense I suppose
is another question. Whether
maybe we may have to deal with
robots that have a notion of pseudo
truth that almost but not quite
corresponds to human truth is interesting.
I wonder if anyone has explored that
in novels.

Of course Asimov's robots
were "positronic robots" and
with a bit of leniency one could
udnerstand them as relying on non
computable phenomena. Maybe
now they would be called
"gravitonic robots" and use
Penrose's gravitational collapse
of the wave fnction. But who
knows, perhaps that is just fun
SF and will never be practical.

> But why should the intoxicated view be
> "distorted", while the sober view is
> raised to the level of defining reality?

Because the distorted view distorts
ones interactions with others,
so that you no longer have a clear
shared reality in which to communicate.

> > Even in Maths actually I feel that
> > it is sometimes insightful to study the history
> > of the subject, not to understand the
> > proofs, but to understand the context
> > for the proof and what gave rise to it,
> > and to give it more interest and life
> by seeing it in its original setting.

> I actually study it to understand the proofs. :)

Yes, indeed. Later the proofs get streamlined
so much and explanatory material removed
from them, makes sense. I think it is a good
way to learn maths in fact, we are presented
with these ideas to learn that took humans
centuries to assimilate and we learn them
in a few years. Maybe one misses something
there and it could be a help to go back
through it again a bit more slowly.

> Once again, humans are irrelevant. Any proof
> a human can write could be written by Hilbert's
> automated proof-checker.

But humans wrote the proof checker. Every time
you make a new axiom system you could
do a proof checker for the axiom system.
But until you codify your ideas into an
axiom system you have no proof checker.

Historically and experientially, the
truth comes first, then you write an
axiom system to try and incorporate
it as much as possible in a system of
rules for a particular field, say
geometry, numbers or whatever.

Eventually people made these grand theories
like ZFC and you can have a proof checker for that
if you can persuade the mathematicians to
put their results into that form. But
that isnt' a complete theory and you
will never have such by Godel again.

If humans really are irrelevant,then
you need some way for the proof checker
to spontaneously assemble without the
work of human engineers or programmers.
Then who is it who says that it is true
anyway.

Not to say human have to mean humans as in
bipedal mammals who are closely related
genetically to chimpanzees. I'm sure
any concious being will be able to share
the same notions of truth if they
have a developed enough understanding
of the worldto be able to formulate the
concept. I think it is instinctive in
fact, so even if you can't express it
well conceptually, you have it within you,
like the character who discovered he had been
speaking prose all his life :-).

Even chimpanzees are capable of lying
I remember reading, in their actions,
which I think means they have some kind
of rudimentary probably not very well
formed notion of truth, you have to know
what truth is in order to be able to lie
don't you. Probably other creatures
also too have some kind of rudimentary
understanding that certain things
are true and others aren't, to guide
their actions. E.g. a dog knows
that there is meat in a room for instance
by smelling or whatever, coudl be said
to ahve some kind of notion of truth.
Of course it can't understand Godel's
theorem but it has the potential there,
just isn't bright enough to follow the
proof.

But a programmed computer I think
can't even have that spark that could
be developed into a fully fledged
notion of truth - because of
Penrose's argument. I used to think
that it was possible and that it might
be possible to be born as an aware
programmed computer. But I can't
see how it could be now. Could
mistakenly think you are a computer
possibly but you wouldn't actually
be and if aware, would depart from your programming
sort of when no-one is looking or something.

If somehow mysteriously awareness
capable of understanding truth could
inhabit a computer, then it could
only do so as a result of
hardware glitches etc somehow
patterned to let it survive
(maybe by gravitationally induced
quantum coherence again :-))
.
Probably a story of some kind
could be written there.

Robert

> > People really seem to have humans on the brain,
> > as it were. From where I'm sitting, humans are
> > at best impressive considering the fact that
> > they're not very impressive.
>
> What's your standard of impressive if not human?

To me, humans are the most impressive things in the
known universe. But I suspect more impressive things
are possible.

> > But why should the intoxicated view be
> > "distorted", while the sober view is
> > raised to the level of defining reality?
>
> This is a question I've always wondered about...and
> a good one. 'In vino est veritas'.....

To me, it means that mind can't be primary.

Castaneda draws the opposite conclusion: taking
mescaline can *actually* cause you to fly.

A friend of mine, with whom I shared many an altered
state, felt there was always some core bit that never
got altered.

But to me, it's just stupdendously obvious that
mind is within brain/body, and that brain/body is
just a machine, and that similar machines can and
will be built.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >> This leads to the conclusion
> >> that there is no universal reference frame for time or
> >> space,
> >
> > But there *is* an absolute spacetime -- space and time taken
> > together as a whole. This is analogous to the fact that, in
> > classical physics, there is no universal reference frame for
> > "left" or "forwards", but there *is* an absolute space.
>
> Yes.
>
> >> that each observer maintains his own history of
> >> events.
> >
> > Actually, it's just that the way the absolute spacetime is
> > *sliced*, to yield the "space" and "time" for any given
> > reference frame, depends on the state of motion of that
> > reference frame. No maintained histories required, no
> > observers either.
>
> Nevertheless, two observers, which I am introducing,
> will sometimes disagree on the order of events.

Two observers, in classical physics, will disagree on which event was
to the left of the other.

> Nevertheless, two observers, which I am introducing,
> will sometimes disagree on the order of events.

So will two descriptions of reality, each of which posit a "space"
and "time" in accordance with a different frame of motion. There
doesn't need to be any observation going on, nor does information
need to travel from one point in space-time for another, for these
descriptions to be perfectly well-defined in SR.
>
> >> In Einstein's own explanation, observers disagree
> >> on the order of events depending on how information of
> >> the event reaches them.
> >
> > Wrong: It has nothing to do with how information of the
> > event reaches them, or even *whether* information of the
> > event reaches them.
>
> I think observers would have a hard time describing an
> event without the information reaching them, don't you?

The event might be hypothetical.

> I think observers would have a hard time describing an
> event without the information reaching them, don't you?

This would seem to be as much a feature of classical physics or any
other description of reality, as of SR. If it's really this
tautological, it isn't fair to call it a central tenet of SR.

> > (In fact, the *appearance* of an object moving very
> > rapidly with respect to you is another question entirely,
> > and the answer is not given by simply describing the
> > object in the observer's reference frame according to
> > Einstein's laws, but must rather employ an objective
> > account of how light rays travel. Evidently, the
> > description of events in Special Relativity is
> > independent, and often quite far from, the description
> > of media that might be used to communicate such events).
>
> Lost me here. Probably with the *appearance* bit.
> Do you mean "how things seem" or "the first time something
> shows up"? Can you give an example of this sort of
> thing?

The book by A. P. French on SR has a nice exercise involving the
apparent vs. relativistic shape of a moving cube, or some such figure.

> > > > that each observer maintains his own history of
> > > > events.
> > >
> > > Actually, it's just that the way the absolute spacetime is
> > > *sliced*, to yield the "space" and "time" for any given
> > > reference frame, depends on the state of motion of that
> > > reference frame. No maintained histories required, no
> > > observers either.
> >
> > Nevertheless, two observers, which I am introducing,
> > will sometimes disagree on the order of events.
>
> Two observers, in classical physics, will disagree on which
> event was to the left of the other.

Yep, space is relativized in classical physics. But for
some reason the relativizing of time is much more shocking.
The details of the relativizing of acceleration are somewhat
beyond me. That's the only reason I picked SR.

> > Nevertheless, two observers, which I am introducing,
> > will sometimes disagree on the order of events.
>
> So will two descriptions of reality, each of which posit
> a "space" and "time" in accordance with a different frame
> of motion.

Yep!

> There doesn't need to be any observation going on,

In fact, I reject the notion that sentient observation
has any role in the laws of physics.

> nor does information need to travel from one point in
> space-time for another, for these descriptions to be
> perfectly well-defined in SR.

Sure it does, or the descriptions wouldn't exist.

> > >> In Einstein's own explanation, observers disagree
> > >> on the order of events depending on how information of
> > >> the event reaches them.
> > >
> > > Wrong: It has nothing to do with how information of the
> > > event reaches them, or even *whether* information of the
> > > event reaches them.
> >
> > I think observers would have a hard time describing an
> > event without the information reaching them, don't you?
>
> The event might be hypothetical.

That's fine. In fact Einstein's explanation used lots of
famous hypotheticals.

> > I think observers would have a hard time describing an
> > event without the information reaching them, don't you?
>
> This would seem to be as much a feature of classical physics
> or any other description of reality, as of SR. If it's
> really this tautological, it isn't fair to call it a central
> tenet of SR.

It's a central tenet of the relativity principle. You're
right, saying that would have been better. But given the
relativity principle's importance in SR, it seems like my
language stops just slightly short of being egregious.

> > > (In fact, the *appearance* of an object moving very
> > > rapidly with respect to you is another question entirely,
> > > and the answer is not given by simply describing the
> > > object in the observer's reference frame according to
> > > Einstein's laws, but must rather employ an objective
> > > account of how light rays travel. Evidently, the
> > > description of events in Special Relativity is
> > > independent, and often quite far from, the description
> > > of media that might be used to communicate such events).
> >
> > Lost me here. Probably with the *appearance* bit.
> > Do you mean "how things seem" or "the first time something
> > shows up"? Can you give an example of this sort of
> > thing?
>
> The book by A. P. French on SR has a nice exercise involving
> the apparent vs. relativistic shape of a moving cube, or
> some such figure.

Noted.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > This would seem to be as much a feature of classical physics
> > or any other description of reality, as of SR. If it's
> > really this tautological, it isn't fair to call it a central
> > tenet of SR.
>
> It's a central tenet of the relativity principle. You're
> right, saying that would have been better. But given the
> relativity principle's importance in SR, it seems like my
> language stops just slightly short of being egregious.

What "relativity principle" is this?

> > > This would seem to be as much a feature of classical physics
> > > or any other description of reality, as of SR. If it's
> > > really this tautological, it isn't fair to call it a central
> > > tenet of SR.
> >
> > It's a central tenet of the relativity principle. You're
> > right, saying that would have been better. But given the
> > relativity principle's importance in SR, it seems like my
> > language stops just slightly short of being egregious.
>
> What "relativity principle" is this?

The principle that the laws of nature -- but not necessarily
anything else -- are the same for all references frames.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > This would seem to be as much a feature of classical physics
> > > > or any other description of reality, as of SR. If it's
> > > > really this tautological, it isn't fair to call it a central
> > > > tenet of SR.
> > >
> > > It's a central tenet of the relativity principle. You're
> > > right, saying that would have been better. But given the
> > > relativity principle's importance in SR, it seems like my
> > > language stops just slightly short of being egregious.
> >
> > What "relativity principle" is this?
>
> The principle that the laws of nature -- but not necessarily
> anything else -- are the same for all references frames.

This applies even to Galilean physics, not just Einstein's.

>>>>> This would seem to be as much a feature of classical physics
>>>>> or any other description of reality, as of SR. If it's
>>>>> really this tautological, it isn't fair to call it a central
>>>>> tenet of SR.
>>>>
>>>> It's a central tenet of the relativity principle. You're
>>>> right, saying that would have been better. But given the
>>>> relativity principle's importance in SR, it seems like my
>>>> language stops just slightly short of being egregious.
>>>
>>> What "relativity principle" is this?
>>
>> The principle that the laws of nature -- but not necessarily
>> anything else -- are the same for all references frames.
>
> This applies even to Galilean physics, not just Einstein's.

In the books I've read, he's credited as the first to
use the principle. But he didn't have Maxwell, so he
didn't include the speed of light.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>>>> This would seem to be as much a feature of classical physics
> >>>>> or any other description of reality, as of SR. If it's
> >>>>> really this tautological, it isn't fair to call it a central
> >>>>> tenet of SR.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a central tenet of the relativity principle. You're
> >>>> right, saying that would have been better. But given the
> >>>> relativity principle's importance in SR, it seems like my
> >>>> language stops just slightly short of being egregious.
> >>>
> >>> What "relativity principle" is this?
> >>
> >> The principle that the laws of nature -- but not necessarily
> >> anything else -- are the same for all references frames.
> >
> > This applies even to Galilean physics, not just Einstein's.
>
> In the books I've read, he's credited as the first to
> use the principle.

Galileo is, right? Otherwise, you'll have to tell me which books
you're reading; they can't be very good.

> But he didn't have Maxwell, so he
> didn't include the speed of light.

The speed of light doesn't necessarily have to be "a law of physics",
any more than the speed of traffic on I-95 is. The idea that it's
constant is the *other* "axiom" of SR, beyond the "relativity
principle" (the first axiom).

What does any of this have to do with your claimed "central tenet of
the relativity principle"?

> > >>> What "relativity principle" is this?
> > >>
> > >> The principle that the laws of nature -- but not necessarily
> > >> anything else -- are the same for all references frames.
> > >
> > > This applies even to Galilean physics, not just Einstein's.
> >
> > In the books I've read, he's credited as the first to
> > use the principle.
>
> Galileo is, right? Otherwise, you'll have to tell me which books
> you're reading; they can't be very good.

Yes!

> > But he didn't have Maxwell, so he
> > didn't include the speed of light.
>
> The speed of light doesn't necessarily have to be "a law of
> physics", any more than the speed of traffic on I-95 is.
> The idea that it's constant is the *other* "axiom" of SR,
> beyond the "relativity principle" (the first axiom).
>
> What does any of this have to do with your claimed "central
> tenet of the relativity principle"?

I don't think anything. The central tenet is that
each observer gets her own, perfectly valid reference
frame.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I don't think anything. The central tenet is that
> each observer gets her own, perfectly valid reference
> frame.

Whoa . . . this is very different from what you originally said, Carl.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > At least read the part about The Andromedean Invasion.
>
> That's the part I read.
>
> > It's the same argument as that of Putnam's, Rietdijk's
> > or Maxwell's but given by none other than Roger Penrose
> > himself. :)
>
> I don't follow how the meeting takes place at two different
> times from the Andromeda reference frames, if it takes
> place at a single point O on Earth and Earth is stationary
> wrt Andromeda. Obviously, my SR is rusty.

Here's the argument:

It is reasonable to assume that "x is real to y" is a transitive
relation (that is: from aRb and bRc it follows aRc).

Let's assume that me-now and you-now are in the same point in space
but in relative motion. Let's assume that some event in the future of
you-now is simultaneous with me-now in my reference frame. As I-now
am real to you-now (as we are in the same point in space) and an
event in the future of you-now is real to me-now it follows that that
event in your future is real to you-now too. Thus, chronogeometrical
fatalism.

Of course this also assumes that now-at-a-distance is real.

> > If I send a light signal from earth into a mirror 3000000
> > kilometers away in space it takes the light 10 seconds to
> > reach the mirror and another 10 seconds to come back from
> > the mirror. If Stein is correct, the event of reflection
> > becomes real when the signal has come back to me. But how
> > did it come back to me if the reflection only just
> > happened 20 seconds after I sent the signal?
>
> This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, but it elevates
> the mind too high. The reflection becomes real just by
> making itself 'known' to points in spacetime as it travels.
>
> Even if we indulge Stein and elevate the mind, once again
> we have the model-bootstrapping issue. The mind knows that
> light travels at a certain speed, so it also knows that
> the reflection existed before it struck your eye -- this
> sort of bootstrapping extends the mind's powers of
> observation, if you will -- it is a type of "observation".

This is not elevated thinking, it is doublethinking.

From Rietdijk:

"If I shoot a bullet with a velocity of 1 km/sec to a wall at a
distance of 10 km from me, is it physically legitimate, then, to say
after ten seconds: the bullet hits the wall now? Of course it is."

> > What do you mean by "anything"?
>
> Exactly anything that exists.

Okay, I thought you mean't anything that could exist.

> Any thought, any event in
> the universe, could be exactly repeated on a computer if
> you had the right information. Of course, the simulation
> would have to be bigger than the actual event -- the
> hardware doing the simulation would have to cover more
> nodes of the underlying universal CA than the original
> event.

Maybe discrete cellular automata could give the appearance of
continuous spacetime but I wouldn't count that as simulation of
continuous spacetimes.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...>
wrote:
>
> > That's very interesting. Special Relativity seems to suggest
static
> > view of spacetime like in the film "12 Monkeys". In this view the
> > future is real and there is no "becoming". This is very common
> topic
> > in the philosophy of time. Google for "Rietdijk Putnam Maxwell".
> >
> > There are also logical arguments for the unreality of the passage
> of
> > time such as McTaggart's paradox.
>
> We have no difficulty seeing the subjective character of "the
here",
> but tend to feel "the now" expresses something real. McTaggart (and
> this line of thought actually goes back to Parmenides) points out
> that assuming "the now" is an actual predicate which attaches a
> quality of nowness to some point in time makes no sense. The
argument
> is sound; the only difficulty is that we seem to experience
> existential nowness, even though that also seems to be nonsense.
> Perhaps we have a proof here that we don't actually exist.

:)

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > > At least read the part about The Andromedean Invasion.
> >
> > That's the part I read.
> >
> > > It's the same argument as that of Putnam's, Rietdijk's
> > > or Maxwell's but given by none other than Roger Penrose
> > > himself. :)
> >
> > I don't follow how the meeting takes place at two different
> > times from the Andromeda reference frames, if it takes
> > place at a single point O on Earth and Earth is stationary
> > wrt Andromeda. Obviously, my SR is rusty.
>
> Here's the argument:
>
> It is reasonable to assume that "x is real to y" is a transitive
> relation (that is: from aRb and bRc it follows aRc).
>
> Let's assume that me-now and you-now are in the same point in
> space but in relative motion.

We're not in relative motion at that instant.

> Of course this also assumes that now-at-a-distance is real.

If I read this right, that's exactly what SR denies!

-Carl

> > The central tenet is that
> > each observer gets her own, perfectly valid reference
> > frame.
>
> Whoa . . . this is very different from what you
> originally said, Carl.

By not relativizing the speed of light, the importance
of information transfer is elevated. Further, I suspect
that if light didn't exist -- if sound waves were the
fastest thing in the universe -- we could just as well
have SR based on the speed of sound. In fact I've often
wondered, when watching someone running on top of a moving
train from an embankment, do we adjust for the speed of
light in vacuo or the speed of light in air to find their
speed relative to the train?

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Of course this also assumes that now-at-a-distance is real.
>
> If I read this right, that's exactly what SR denies!

This is one of the last times I'm going to try to tell you this.
Carl, you're absolutely incorrect about SR. Somehow, you have this
virtually backwards. I encourage you to read the Maudlin book I keep
referring to, as well as anything else you can get your hands on, and
do as many exercises as you can. In the meantime, be well -- I wish
you the best!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > The central tenet is that
> > > each observer gets her own, perfectly valid reference
> > > frame.
> >
> > Whoa . . . this is very different from what you
> > originally said, Carl.
>
> By not relativizing the speed of light, the importance
> of information transfer is elevated.

Neither physically nor philosophically is this in any way true.

> Further, I suspect
> that if light didn't exist -- if sound waves were the
> fastest thing in the universe -- we could just as well
> have SR based on the speed of sound.

SR doesn't 'hang' on light at all, nor on its being 'the fastest
thing in the universe'. There needn't be any light at all and SR
would still apply. Meanwhile, sound has a medium, so this could never
work.

> In fact I've often
> wondered, when watching someone running on top of a moving
> train from an embankment, do we adjust for the speed of
> light in vacuo or the speed of light in air to find their
> speed relative to the train?

In vacuo. The speed of light in air has absolutely no relevance to
kinematics. Maybe this points to some misunderstandings which are
causing your misunderstanding of, well, you keep moving the target
between the 'relativity principle' and 'SR'. Neither light, nor
communication, nor information, is needed to fully flesh out SR.
Perhaps some popular accounts have you confused on this issue. You'd
like Maudlin -- one of the first sections is 'finger exercise:
superluminal matter transport'. Do me a favor and brush up, either
with this book or something else. Then contact me off-list to
continue this discussion.

Best,
Paul

> > > Of course this also assumes that now-at-a-distance is real.
> >
> > If I read this right, that's exactly what SR denies!
>
> This is one of the last times I'm going to try to tell you
> this. Carl, you're absolutely incorrect about SR. Somehow,
> you have this virtually backwards. I encourage you to read
> the Maudlin book I keep referring to, as well as anything
> else you can get your hands on, and do as many exercises
> as you can. In the meantime, be well -- I wish you the best!

Telling someone they're absolutely incorrect about something
isn't very helpful. I've read many books on SR, but I'll
pick up the Maudlin book when I get the chance (as a minor
coincidence, he was one of the respondents to Penrose's
_Shadows_ on the site I linked to). Also, telling someone
they're completely mistaken about SR in response to a one-
sentence philosophical remark is rather brazen. Finally,
threatening "last times" is rather odd, considering that you
were freely offering commentary on a conversation taking
place between Kalle and I.

Despite all the emotional journeys, you still haven't
learned not to scold people, and then reacting with vitriol
like this when they don't keel over and kiss your ass:

/metatuning/topicId_7827.html#8039

I really appreciate your desire to further understanding
in the world, and your world-class resources for doing so,
but your behavior sometimes betrays your motivations as
slightly less than sincere.

-Carl

> > In fact I've often
> > wondered, when watching someone running on top of a moving
> > train from an embankment, do we adjust for the speed of
> > light in vacuo or the speed of light in air to find their
> > speed relative to the train?
>
> In vacuo. The speed of light in air has absolutely no
> relevance to kinematics. Maybe this points to some
> misunderstandings which are causing your misunderstanding
> of, well, you keep moving the target between the
> 'relativity principle' and 'SR'.

Thank you for replying. But I resent your accusation that
I've been moving the target. Any time someone has trouble
communicating with you they're either moving the target
or misunderstanding?

> Neither light, nor communication, nor information, is
> needed to fully flesh out SR. Perhaps some popular
> accounts have you confused on this issue. You'd like
> Maudlin -- one of the first sections is 'finger exercise:
> superluminal matter transport'. Do me a favor and brush
> up, either with this book or something else. Then
> contact me off-list to continue this discussion.

OK.

-Carl

Paul,

I haven't followed the thread on SR so much, but I have to say that I think
Carl is right, and that here your opening came across as rather aggressive
and arrogant (I'd be the first to say that I'm guilty of this from time to
time as well, as are all of us, being human).

The general implication of what you are saying to Carl (who is an incredibly
gifted and smart human being) is that he is less bright than you are, and
that he needs to be scolded ('the last time I'm goin to tell you this') for a
stubborn disagreement with you over the SR issue you discuss.

Now, I know you are also a tremendously bright and gifted human being, and
sometimes that comes with an insensitivity to how a message's tone will
affect the psychology of it's receiver. The end result of such conduct in an
argument is fruitless polarization, where both parties become
*psychologically* unwilling to yield true points to each other.

Just a thought (we could all use this thought, and I put myself right in
there)

All best,
Aaron.

On Sunday 11 July 2004 02:19 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > > Of course this also assumes that now-at-a-distance is real.
> > >
> > > If I read this right, that's exactly what SR denies!
> >
> > This is one of the last times I'm going to try to tell you
> > this. Carl, you're absolutely incorrect about SR. Somehow,
> > you have this virtually backwards. I encourage you to read
> > the Maudlin book I keep referring to, as well as anything
> > else you can get your hands on, and do as many exercises
> > as you can. In the meantime, be well -- I wish you the best!
>
> Telling someone they're absolutely incorrect about something
> isn't very helpful. I've read many books on SR, but I'll
> pick up the Maudlin book when I get the chance (as a minor
> coincidence, he was one of the respondents to Penrose's
> _Shadows_ on the site I linked to). Also, telling someone
> they're completely mistaken about SR in response to a one-
> sentence philosophical remark is rather brazen. Finally,
> threatening "last times" is rather odd, considering that you
> were freely offering commentary on a conversation taking
> place between Kalle and I.
>
> Despite all the emotional journeys, you still haven't
> learned not to scold people, and then reacting with vitriol
> like this when they don't keel over and kiss your ass:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_7827.html#8039
>
> I really appreciate your desire to further understanding
> in the world, and your world-class resources for doing so,
> but your behavior sometimes betrays your motivations as
> slightly less than sincere.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

I agree with everything you said, Aaron, except that this:

>('the last time I'm goin to tell you this')

was not what I said. I said something similar, but it was not out of
condescension towards, or impatience with, Carl. In fact, you'll note
that I encourage him to continue with me off-list.

The reason I said 'the last time' is because I'm outta here. And that
has very little to do with Carl.

So my deepest apologies to Carl, and best wishes to you all!

On Sunday 11 July 2004 02:57 pm, Paul Erlich wrote:

> The reason I said 'the last time' is because I'm outta here. And that
> has very little to do with Carl.

Where you goin, dude?

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Here's the argument:
> >
> > It is reasonable to assume that "x is real to y" is a transitive
> > relation (that is: from aRb and bRc it follows aRc).
> >
> > Let's assume that me-now and you-now are in the same point in
> > space but in relative motion.
>
> We're not in relative motion at that instant.

Why not?

Instantaneous speed is allowed by SR and standard calculus.

If you have a problem with us being at the same point the argument
can be modified so that we have some distance between us. :)

> > Of course this also assumes that now-at-a-distance is real.
>
> If I read this right, that's exactly what SR denies!

No, SR doesn't do that.

But if *you* deny now-at-a-distance present becomes a thing with no
extension i.e. a point. Remember that you, Carl, are an extended
thing too. So you are not even present to yourself.

I assume you at least still hold that the events in your past light
cone are real. And I assume that they really are past and not present
or you would have to hold that big bang happens now.

If that is right, the event of you writing your reply will never be
contemporaneous with me but it will be past to me. So "Carl is
writing a reply to me" is never true but "Carl wrote a reply to me"
will be true.

Kalle