Re: Greene and the problem of presentism
From: Mike Helland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 08/19/04
- Next message: Marcus Wellpoth: "Re: Kerry is a whimp."
- Previous message: Marcus Wellpoth: "Re: Kerry is a whimp."
- In reply to: Marcel LeBel: "Re: Greene and the problem of presentism"
- Next in thread: Marcel LeBel: "Re: Greene and the problem of presentism"
- Reply: Marcel LeBel: "Re: Greene and the problem of presentism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Aug 2004 14:42:37 -0700
Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<FM6Tc.1682017$Ar.388382@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> - using same thread header fro discusioon continuity Helland-LeBel
I've snipped heavily to get to the heart of the differences in our
thinking. Obviouslly, we agree on quite a bit, and what we disagree on
might be sorted out through differences in our terminology.
[mh]
> But this is only a contradiction if we assume that "interaction" is
> synonymous with "phenomenon" and that isn't the case. A phenomenon is
> real. An interaction can be thought of just like matter; an interaction
> also exists in the analysis of a phenomenon.
[ml]
> ------ below, a phenomenon is real? I would say a phenomenon is how we
> experience an event.? If you want to address what is REAL you must
> procede with ontology”
This could be. Basically my terminology is this:
What is real: a phenomenon
What is the illusion (what is experience): interaction
Whereas it seems that you're saying:
What is real: an event
What is the illusion (what is experience): a phenomenon
I think we'd just have to agree on one or the other. To understand
your position, where does "interaction" fit into your picture?
Could we agree that an event and a phenomenon are synonymous, and an
interaction is the analysis (experience/perception) of the
event/phenomenon?
Or is there a compelling reason to think of event and phenomenon as
two different things?
> --------- Our reality is how we experience the real universe. It is a
> complex process by which we transform the information, integrate it and
> so on...Science studies our reality in order to find out what the real
> universe is about.
> The unknowable agent is the cause, and the photon is the name given to
> the knowable effects. I also suggest that the electron is fundamentally
> similar to the photon in this sense. There is some hypothetical agent
> that does not exist in our set of observations, but whose behavior, when
> combined with the other unknowable agents, creates knowable effects, an
> effect we have labeled the electron.
> ------- this is pretty much an ontological analysis, since this agent
[snip]
> 3. Fundamental nature is a set of unknowable phenomena with its own
> fundamental matter, space, and time that encompasses nature
> -------- as I said earlier, our reality is how we experience the real
> universe via our limited mental and physical abilities. To understand
> this distinction is an enormous step!
> -------- GENERAL COMMENT: I think that you begin to understand the
> difference between our reality and the real universe and that science
> addresses our reality while the answers lies in the real universe.
I think we agree totaly, but I dislike the word "reality" and "real"
What you call "the real universe" is what I call "fundamental nature",
and what you call "reality" I call "nature".
These are the terms I suggest. Here are others:
mine Nature | Fundmental Nature
yours Reality | Real Universe
------------------------------------------------
Physical Universe | Universe
Observable Universe | Universe
If it makes more sense to call the universe at large "the universe"
and then "nature" or "reality" or "observable universe" then I'll
accept that.
But I think that my hypothesis suggests that there is a large
hierarchy of phenomena in the universe, so saying that Fundamental
Nature = Universe could be incorrect, as FN could have its own
underlyingn "deeper" universe.
In any case, whatever we do, we should standardize these terms. There
are other posters on the newsgroup (like Patrick Reany) who talks
about "Superficial Reality" and "Deeper Reality" and its pretty
obvious he is somewhat in our camp too. We should all agree on some
terminology instead of having multiple versions, it can only help our
positions.
So I suggest "Nature" for "(superficial) reality" and Fundamental
Nature for the "deeper reality/real universe".
Does that sound agreeable?
Patrick, do you have any comments?
> But I
> don’t think that you know yet what you want, and this is the flaw. The
> approach complexify the problem instead of making it simpler. For
> example, to divide the universe in four sets goes against the
> reductionism required. GR and QM don’t go well together? Find out why?
Actually, I think I am making things simpler.
Lets say we have nature and fundamental nature (reality and the real
universe).
We agree on that much. Where we disagree is how time, space, and
matter factor into this structure.
I believe that time, space, and matter exist in nature, and that
fundamental nature has its own, different versions of time, space, and
matter.
If I understand your position, time only exists in nature, and it is
replaced by space in fundamental nature?
Is that right? If it is, I don't understand it. Could you please
explain this to me with more details?
Then we will continue our discussion.
As I said, we agree on quite a bit, if we can agree on some
terminology, and if we can agree on how time, space, and matter work,
then we'll have something. I'm looking forward to that.
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
- Next message: Marcus Wellpoth: "Re: Kerry is a whimp."
- Previous message: Marcus Wellpoth: "Re: Kerry is a whimp."
- In reply to: Marcel LeBel: "Re: Greene and the problem of presentism"
- Next in thread: Marcel LeBel: "Re: Greene and the problem of presentism"
- Reply: Marcel LeBel: "Re: Greene and the problem of presentism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
