The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

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.

Georgina Woodward

Lorraine Ford
I agree with your first paragraph,

Georgina Woodward

Attention makes sensory receipt not just passive due to location.

Lorraine Ford

Physicist Brian Greene is now saying that, logically, primitive particles must have a degree of consciousness. Particles supposedly have feelings: people tend to think that consciousness is all about the feelings. But thoughts and feelings and emotions are merely the superficial signs of consciousness, and they say nothing about what type of thing that consciousness actually is.

In fact, the existence of structure (categories, relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories) does not logically imply knowledge of the structure: knowledge of the structure is the essential function of consciousness, and the thoughts and feelings and emotions are merely the way that that knowledge manifests itself.

So, consciousness is an entirely separate aspect of the world that must be accounted for when the question is asked: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?".

The other aspects that must be accounted for are: the fact that there is something moving at the foundations of the universe, and the fact that there exists very particular and distinct structure at the foundations of the universe.

Lorraine Ford

The mathematical structure of our world was necessarily created by our standalone self-sufficient world itself, with no interference from the outside because there IS no outside. Our world is necessarily inherently creative.

I.e. the logical view would be that the world has genuine free will over structural outcomes, as opposed to the view of much of science and philosophy that “free will” is merely a superficial description of complex deterministic outcomes.

This view of the world being inherently creative is in opposition to the view, of much of science and philosophy, that there is no such thing as genuinely creative/ genuinely free outcomes, there are only the deterministic outcomes of the laws of nature.

But in fact, science and philosophy have clearly failed in their duty to explain the existence of mathematical structure, and to explain why the structure is moving.

Instead, what science and philosophy have done is to assume mathematical structure, and to assume movement, as first principles. These are invalid assumptions.

Because of the invalid assumptions that they have made, science and philosophy have made a completely invalid analysis of the nature of the world.

Lorraine Ford

How long are science, mathematics and philosophy going to get away with trying to claim that: 1) a mathematical structure, and 2) a structure that is moving, are first-principles aspects of the world?

In fact, the mathematical structure of the world can be deconstructed into multiple types of categories, multiple simultaneously-existing relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. If it weren’t for the politically-correct mental straitjackets, that science, mathematics and philosophy seem to have shackled themselves with, it would be clear that what created the categories, relationships and numbers would be the true first principles aspect of the world. A creation-ex-nihilo aspect of the world is the true first principles aspect of the world. And this creation-ex-nihilo, of categories, relationships, and numbers, is the primary movement that the world makes.

But what exactly is “movement” anyway, when it comes to movement in an existing system? Numbers are NOT the types of things that can smoothly morph into other numbers. The other alternative, the only valid way that movement in a system can occur, is by the free ex-nihilo creation of new numbers or number changes (i.e. number jumps), which then cause other numbers to move, due to the existing relationships between categories.

This whole issue wouldn’t be so serious if it were not for the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who try to claim, seemingly based on their evaluation of what the first principles aspects of the world are, that there is no such thing as free will over the structure, or creativity with the structure.

Lorraine Ford

Science, mathematics and philosophy assume movement in the world. But what is real-world movement? Here are some possible real-world scenarios, expressed in terms of mathematical categories, relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories:

Only particular categories (like position) exist.
 A bloated number infrastructure also exists, consisting of all possible numbers for these categories, including all in-between numbers; some sort of position flag signifies what number is currently true for the category.
 When the position flag for a number is moved, this causes the position flags for other numbers for other categories to also be moved, due to the relationships between the categories.
Only particular categories (like position) exist.
 No number infrastructure exists, but currently-true numbers (for a category) can smoothly move/ morph into other currently-true numbers.
 When the currently-true numbers move/ morph, this causes the numbers for other categories to also move/ morph into other currently-true numbers, due to the relationships between the categories
Only particular categories (like position) exist.
 No number infrastructure exists, but currently-true numbers (for a category) are created (i.e. jumped) on the spot.
 When the numbers are jumped, the newly created numbers cause other numbers to jump, due to the relationships between the categories.

With 1, and 2 above, a thing called “movement” is assumed but not explained. With 3 above, a thing called “movement” is defined as creativity-ex-nihilo.

« Previous Page