Greta wrote:Where does subjective experience come into this? It would seem superfluous and would appear to fail your hardline Occam's Razor approach.
Obvious Leo wrote:I don't know how you can draw this conclusion. Although I make no metaphysical distinction between "life" and "non-life" I'm willing to accept the prosaic distinction as it is understood in the common usage. Chemists and biologists make no such life/non-life distinctions and are in no doubt that the systems they study are information systems and that such systems evolve from the simple to the complex in exactly the way I define above. Under the right external conditions life and mind MUST evolve in our cosmos because it simply cannot be otherwise. This is a mandated consequence of the meta-law of cause and effect and requires no other law or teleological principle.
I have also had the impression that there's no hard line between life and non-life, but there's no reason for life to have a sense of experience, to have qualia. Life would survive better if it didn't experience anything and instead simply operated informationally, selecting optimal approaches for every situation like a well programmed computer.
Greta wrote: Still, I need help with the idea of how we are gravitationally attracted to the Earth (or whatever larger body) because of the different tempo of time between our head and feet.
Obvious Leo wrote:You'll never get it until you manage to locate yourself only in a gravity/time continuum, just like you'll never understand entanglement either unless you can manage this little conceptual feat, You have to throw the luminiferous aether down the shithouse and think the world without it, Greta. It's not all that easy but it's well worth the effort because every single counter-intuitive absurdity in physics simply vanishes and leaves only Wheeler's universe of the most sublime austerity.
I was thinking about this. You referred to subatomic particles travelling at the speed of light, yet without space how can anything travel at light speed? Even relative space seems a problem in your exclusively grav/time model. I'm okay with reality basically constantly forming and breaking up over time from Planck scale or smaller to larger and larger scales - be it what we call life, planets, stars, galaxies, superclusters or the entire cosmic web. Even talk of larger scales brings relative space into the picture. To be aggregated by gravity is to be compressed into a smaller and denser space
, like gas and dust clouds that eventually formed the planets and other entities.
You sound like a big chicken - did you faint when your wife was delivering?
Obvious Leo wrote:No. I was out in the carpark smoking cigarettes.
Spoken like a real Chuck Norris!
Greta wrote:As you know, I am interested in reality's tendency to produce imperfect fractals -, "as above, so below".
Obvious Leo wrote:This is why you should be able to get where I'm coming from. The grav/time continuum is a fractal dimension and all the various informational hierarchies within it are embedded within each other like matryoshka dolls. The universe is just a big Mandelbrot set and you can even locate yourself within it as a self-similarity, where are you both all of it and part of it. It's simply far too elegant to be wrong but I'll remind you that it does yield a testable hypothesis which would falsify current theory. This is not a mere navel-gazing exercise.
I still have some issues. Obviously I still have questions about qualia and space. I'm also not satisfied with "it's hard to get your hear around" non-explanation with gravity being one's top and bottom in different time zones. It's up to you to find a way to get your concepts across if you want to spread your memes.
If you don't mind me saying so, your "Philosophy of the Bloody Obvious" needs a whole lot more paragraph breaks and generally try to help readers out, to quote Kurt Vonnegut's advice to writers:
Readers have to identify thousands of little marks on paper, and make sense of them immediately. They have to read, an art so difficult that most people don’t really master it even after having studied it all through grade school and high school — twelve long years.
So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify, whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.
You used informal language so it's not as though you were aiming for academic purity. I wouldn't say this if I didn't think you had ideas that more people should be talking about.
Greta wrote: As per Chalmers, the growth of systems from subatomic scale to larger more complex entities does not require an internal subjective experience, just action and reaction.
Obvious Leo wrote:I actually know David Chalmers personally and find him a very charming bloke. However I wouldn't give you two bob for his dualist take on the world. In my opinion Chalmers doesn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow because I categorically do NOT think my thoughts. I am a dynamic PROCESS and thus I AM my thoughts. I am NOT (a) Being but simply Being.
You are too sure of your position IMO. When you think of the advances that will be made in the future, what makes you think that you have fully cracked the mystery just 7,000 years after we started organising agriculture. Are you so sure that our descendants in a million years will say, "Most of them didn't have a clue but, hey, this guy's on to something"? I don't mean to be critical, just to challenge some ideas.
Are we just our thoughts? We are also ecosystems to microbes - we're their whole world. We are relationships. We are not just the now but we also carry, and are shaped by, the past in the form of information. I suspect that time is not so definitive and that the past does not just disappear.