The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Lorraine Ford

But a big problem with the concept of “creativity” is the hypocrisy of people who believe themselves to be capable of creative outcomes, while at the same time believing that they are part of a world where all outcomes are as determined as the path of a ball rolling down an incline.

The concept of “creativity” or “free will” has been cheapened by people like the late Daniel Dennett, so that a mathematical or other outcome, that is as determined as the path of a ball rolling down an incline, has now been allowed to be redefined as “creativity” or “free will”.

Male dominated science and philosophy has allowed the concept of creativity/ free will to be cheapened and redefined out of existence.

Lorraine Ford

At the foundations of the world there exists, not a mathematical system that moves, but what created and sustains the mathematical system that moves. I.e. consciousness and creativity are what exist at the foundations of the world.

But male dominated philosophy has debased both the concept of creativity/ free will and the concept of consciousness. In particular, the late Daniel Dennett debased the idea of creativity/ free will, and David Chalmers has debased the idea of consciousness.

Dennett:
His vast volumes of verbiage can’t hide the fact that Daniel Dennett is essentially saying that a mathematical or other outcome, that is as determined as the path of a ball rolling down an incline, must now be allowed to be redefined as “creativity” or “free will”. One is reminded of the George Orwell book “1984”, which paints a picture of a doublethink world: “… impudently claiming that black is white … a loyal willingness to say that black is white … the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”. Daniel Dennett has debased the idea of creativity/ free will.

Chalmers:
Similarly, former-mathematician David Chalmers’ vast volumes of verbiage have debased the idea of consciousness. His “consciousness” is a feeble superficial feeling, which is totally unnecessary in the scheme of things, because he in effect says that the world would function perfectly well with just zombies. This is a view of the world that would be typical for a mathematician.

But in fact, it is clear that feelings, emotions, and emotionless thoughts are just the form that consciousness/ knowledge takes, the way that consciousness/ knowledge presents itself.

And in fact, consciousness is a necessary and separate aspect of the world because the existence of something does not imply consciousness/ knowledge of its existence. I.e. the existence of categories, mathematical relationships, and numbers at the foundations of the world does not imply consciousness/ knowledge of their existence. But at a foundational level, the world needs to be conscious of/ know what its own particular and distinct categories, mathematical relationships, and numbers are, out of all the theoretically possible categories, mathematical relationships, and numbers that could exist.

………………………

While consciousness and creativity are what created and sustains the underlying, moving mathematical system, male philosophers like Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers have debased the concept of creativity/ free will and the concept of consciousness.

Georgina Woodward

I don't know that this is based on true assertions, as you have said so much ,uncorroberated by evidence taken in context. that is shamelessly untrue.
There may be some correlation between education and gender or biological sex .If so the attitude towards certain concepts is probably not diliberate discrimination favouring ones own sex .It may have some thing to do with the age of the gentelmen in question and changing societal attitudes .Things that were accaptable,until recent years , to think and say are not anymore. I don't think their opinions are due to their maleness exclusively or primarily. Consciosness and freewill used to be regarded as too complex and tied to imprecise psychology, biology and culture that they were more suitrable for a soft, social science appproach and the 'creative female brain' i.e right side dominnt rather than 'hard, precise, mathematical and suited to a a left side dominant 'male type'or autistic (Regadless of sex/gender) thinking style.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward
There, there, Georgina.

Now explain what exactly YOU mean by “consciousness” and “free will/ creativity”.

Oh, I forgot. You can’t even explain what you mean by “consciousness” or “free will/ creativity”!

Perhaps you had better Google it.

Georgina Woodward

CONSCIOUSNESS
Sensory product awareness-sensations
Related to idea of a self Who obseves and perceives.
Eg .I am too hot. i am too thirsty.
approipriate behaviour to bring body back to balance-increases personaL survival chances.
internal- behavioural homeostasis.
external awareness of resources needed ,hazzards and predators,mates and mating oportunities,
to increase personal survival or survival oF own kind.
Awareness of and response to feelings , produced by edocrine system, as a result of sensory information.
greater repertoire and more appreopriate respones to stimului.
FREE WILL
Ability to enact own choice of behaviour
CREATIVITY
Has something to do with novely, an outcome of a process that is something new, not repetition

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
More succinctly; Consciosness
A sense of self awareness (which may be self generated) and state of being given aquired information, about internal and external environments,1.(experienced as sensations- products of the sensory system, and recreptors ) and feelings ( products of the endocrine system responding to 1. ) Self talk .Reporting on conditions (Eg. All's well ,i am in danger,.) state of being.(I am too hot.......)
functions to increase fitness of the individual. allowing most appropriate response in the given circumstances. Which includes behavioral homeostasIs.
Functions to increases reproduction of own kind, allowing most appropriate response (and likely to suceed) in the given circumstances.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward
Georgina,

In the context of this FQxI website, what is required is a bigger picture than a mere superficial description of your personal consciousness, and a bigger picture than a mere superficial description of how you, and other human beings, operate in the world.

Also, words matter. As male dominated religion and philosophy continue to demonstrate, man-made words are perfect for disguising and distorting and blurring what they are actually saying about the nature of the world, if one does not closely analyse what has been said. Man-made words are a problem. Physics uses special symbols because they are pretty much unambiguous.

The late Daniel Dennett provides a good example of the problem with man-made words: underlying his vast output of words, he in effect said that black is white, and everybody lapped it up. He actively worked to blur and redefine the meaning of the “free will” word, à la “1984”, so that in effect, black is now white in the minds of many people, including many physicists and philosophers, who seemingly just thoughtlessly lapped it up.

"Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?". Why is there mathematical structure at the foundations of the world, and why is it moving? Why is the world continuing to move to this day (because the mathematical laws of nature do not explain why the world is moving)?

In fact, a moving mathematical system CAN’T be explained in terms of the mathematical categories, equations and numbers alone. As symbolic computer systems have demonstrated, EVERY viable moving system needs logical connective symbols representing creative/ free will-like aspects, and logical connective symbols representing knowledge/ consciousness-like aspects, as well as the usual symbols representing the categories, equations and numbers.

In a viable moving system, represented symbolically, the symbols representing the creative/ free will-like aspects, and the symbols representing the knowledge/ consciousness-like aspects, CAN’T BE REPLACED BY the symbols representing the categories, equations and numbers.

I.e., the symbols representing the creative/ free will-like aspects, and the symbols representing the knowledge/ consciousness-like aspects, represent entirely different aspects of the world to the aspects of the world represented by the symbols for the categories, equations and numbers.

I’m saying that the creativity/ free will and the knowledge/ consciousness aspects of the world can be traced back to the foundations of the world. I’m saying that creativity/ free will and knowledge/ consciousness are the SOURCE of the aspects of the world symbolically represented as categories, equations and numbers.

Georgina Woodward

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward
We must excuse poor old Georgina, who can’t speak for herself, and relies on men to speak for her. (For context, it must also be mentioned that she is also a climate-science denier, and I never watch her shithouse video selections.)

Lorraine Ford

Just like a cloud might superficially look like a mountain range, I think that pre-video-Georgina was saying that creativity/ free will and knowledge/ consciousness are superficial descriptions of outcomes in parts of the real-world system, outcomes that, if you could examine the underlying physics very closely, are as determined as the path of a ball rolling down an incline.

I, on the other hand, am saying that there can be no such thing as a system at all without fundamental-level aspects that are creative/ free will-like and fundamental-level aspects that are knowledge/ consciousness-like. Whether matter ends up as a pile of sand, a planet, or a living thing, if you could examine the underlying physics very closely, there are fundamental-level aspects that are creative/ free will-like and fundamental-level aspects that are knowledge/ consciousness-like.

I think that part of the problem in seeing the true nature of systems is that there exists, in the minds of many people, a mistaken idea about mathematics. The mistaken idea is that mathematics and mathematical systems don’t require creative/ free will-like aspects and knowledge/ consciousness-like aspects. This mistaken view occurs because mathematicians are thought to be external to the mathematics, with the mathematics having a separate existence.. In fact, the creativity and consciousness of mathematicians is NOT external to the mathematics; the creativity and consciousness of mathematicians is the only reason that man-made mathematics can exist at all.

Georgina Woodward

I do not require anyone to express my own ideas, as I frequently do. Speaking is something different.
Ian mcGilchrist is speaking on the video for himself, saying some things I think are relevant and interesting.
I don't agree with everthing he says For example, he mentions being a pan psychist.
Ian mcGilchrist neuroscientist/philosopher/author of 'The matter with things'. summry of Ian's talk follows
2 hemispheres with small connection between. Why? lot of brain activity telling other hemisphere to be quiet ,rather than co-oprerating. Both hemisiheres are emotional. ' Left 'prone to anger and jumps to conclusions. Not one one emotional, other not. Marked asymmetry of hemispheres seen in all animals with a brain and simpler animals with ganglia, including extant common ancestor-Why? Its about attention. How does a creature stay alive while hunting and feeding ,which needs focussed attention, to grab prey . If that is all its atttention it won't live very long, as it won't see the predator overhead, and it won't notice its offspring or mate that also need feeding. These forms of attention are very different requring two different hemispheres. One is very narrow and precise ,the other very broad, attending to everything else.
Left regards things as static, given, inanimate, systems or mechanisms. Right tends to see things as animate , alive, coming into being as we pay attention to them, presenting itself.
Civilization tends to favour left side thinking-that's what we grab with, make money with, destruction of nature, destruction of mankind, reductionism, dogma black and white thinking.
The appearance of reality, we individually generate, is dependent on what we pay attention to, and so percieve and experience.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward
Georgina,

Your bogus “Explanatory Scheme”, in which you claim that people are inherently deluded about the world, is demonstrably a load of nonsense. After all, people have landed spacecraft on Mars.

And contrary to what you say, the world CAN’T be understood from a Voodoo-like examination of the left and right hemispheres of chicken brains.

Similarly, the world can’t be understood in terms of your blind men and elephants, your black cats, your socks, your termite mounds or your aeroplane wings

Physics takes the correct approach: the world can only be understood by identifying the fundamental-level aspects of the world. And they have done pretty good job of it, though there are still outstanding problems.

But your self-published books, in which (according to the blurb) you claim to explain the outstanding problems of physics, are seemingly all about a Voodoo, chicken-brain view of the world.

Georgina Woodward

QUOTE'...the world can only be understood by identifying the fundamental-level aspects of the world. And they have done pretty good job of it, though there are still outstanding problems.' lorraine Ford
some of the problems.....
If quantum physics is at the foundation, it is nothing like the rest and can't be used to undestand different scales- It doesn't extrapolate, so doesn't follow normal rules of reductionism.
A bigger scale gives something complely different in behaviour. Not same but bigger.
The renormalization problem-ignoring infinities in answers
The measurement problem
The gravity compatability problem-no quantum gravity
The entanglement issue not shared by macroscopic and astronomic physics
QM needs faster than light communication OR NON REALISM not allowed by Einstein's physics
illlusion issue
Object permenance
Wave particle duality is assumed, but not seen at any other scales. Self similarity is a feature of nature at other scales
Incompatible with chaos although accepted physics at other scales
Supperposition never seen at quantum or other scales
Differences of time' s participation at different scales
Mathematical theory used by physics not physics itself
Problem of use of macroscopic apparatus and experimenters in quantum experiments despite using different physics
Depends on background assumptions such as metaphysics used ,which I think is wrong. As suggeted changes overcome the temporal and spatial PARADOXES

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward
Contrary to what you say, the world CAN’T be understood from a Voodoo-type examination of the left and right hemispheres of slaughtered chicken brains, or any other brains.

In order to send spacecraft to Mars or the Moon, it was not found necessary:

To examine chicken brains, or any other brains, or
To apply any knowledge learned from the examination of chicken brains, or any other brains.

If one wants to understand the nature of the world, one does NOT start by examining chicken brains, or any other brains.

Instead, one needs to do exactly what physicists have done, and they have done a mighty good job. Any problems with physics are NOT going to be solved by examining chicken brains, or any other brains, and looking for clues.

Georgina Woodward

Lorraine Ford
To get into space scientists and technicians have used classical physics and probably geometry and maybe some astronomy ,they have not used modern quantum physics.

Lorraine Ford

I would not presume to tell physicists how to do physics, and it is a long time since I studied physics and mathematics and computer science at university.

But it is clear that physicists and mathematicians and philosophers CAN’T IDENTIFY THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES between a set of equations and a viable moving system. However, I spent more than two decades working on systems.

And it is clear that physicists and mathematicians and philosophers have got A MENTAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL BLOCK when it comes to the question of origins: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?". Physicists and mathematicians and philosophers are complacent and uncurious when it comes to the idea that something that moves, with a mathematical structure, underlies the world.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward
Contrary to what Georgina is saying, "modern quantum physics" can’t be understood via a voodoo-type examination of the left and right hemispheres of slaughtered chicken brains, or any other brains.

"Modern quantum physics" does not require:

The examination of chicken brains, or any other brains, or
The application of any knowledge learned from the examination of chicken brains, or any other brains.

If one wants to understand "modern quantum physics", one does not start by examining chicken brains, or any other brains.

When it comes to "modern quantum physics", physicists have done a mighty good job.

Any problems that are apparent with "modern quantum physics" are NOT going to be solved by examining chicken brains, or any other brains, and looking and hoping and praying for clues.

Georgina Woodward

Lorraine Ford
I have not said anything about quantum physics and chicken brains. I linked an interesting video about the hemispheres of the brain, by a different person . Despitre having not mentioned chicken brains in particulasr or chicken slaughter myself, you mention those matters about 16 times, as if it is some kind of bizarre obsesion of your own.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward

🙂

Lorraine Ford

Georgina Woodward
Our interactions with the world, and our experiments on the world, are inherently valid. It is merely the CONCLUSIONS, that we might draw from our interactions with the world and our experiments on the world, that can be questioned. But our interactions and experiments themselves are inherently valid.

However, you continually claim that people are inherently deluded, and so our interactions and experiments are inherently invalid.

Your “examining animal/ chicken brains” example seems to be the basis of your claim that people are inherently deluded, and so our interactions with the world, and experiments on the world, are inherently invalid. And the video selection that you recommend has the title in big letters: “We are living in a deluded world”.

This purportedly existing delusion is apparently what you have been on about all this time, with your “Explanatory Model”, and your many self-published books, which purportedly (according to the blurb) solve physics’ greatest problems.

However, as I said, if living things were inherently deluded like you claim they are, we wouldn’t be able to operate in the world, let alone send spacecraft to Mars or the Moon.

Lorraine Ford

The following opinion is an example of today’s scientific and philosophical timidity:

“It seems natural to ask why the universe exists at all. Modern physics suggests that the universe can exist all by itself as a self-contained system, without anything external to create or sustain it. But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation.” Sean Carroll , 8 February 2018, https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2018/02/08/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-2/.

Contrary to the above timid opinion, there is abundant logical evidence that the world has been free and creative from the very start:

Creative: Instead of nothing, there is structure. The world moved itself to create structure (categories, mechanistic relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories).
Free and creative AT the start: Out of all the hypothetically possible categories and relationships between categories, the world created a very particular structure.
Free and creative FROM the start: Out of all the hypothetically possible numbers that could apply to the categories, the world created, and continues to create, very particular on-the-spot numbers/ number jumps/ number change (whereby other numbers also change, due to the mechanistic relationships).

Because science and philosophy have failed in their due diligence, science and philosophy have also failed to see the freedom and creativity that has existed in the world from the very start.

« Previous Page Next Page »