Here we begin to see the limited role the physical constituents play in the
overall
composite we call a TV set. The next step is to look at something irreducible
(complex) and watch the physical costituents almost totally fade from the
picure.
Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Now we have six "wild guesses" that I've tried to boil down as
> follows:
>
> 1. Walter Fritz thinks that we can get a computer to produce these non
> physical effects and that it can all be reduced to objective physical
> objects and processes.
> 2. Don Mikulecky suggests we use Rosen's catagory theory that deals with
> objects and their models as relational.
>
> 3. John Kineman proposes that existence and experience are one and that
> the becoming experience may be quantum related.
>
> 4. Norm McPhail submits that the qualities of non physical data somehow
> transpose into effecting physical differences.
>
> 5. Alexei Sharov considers it possible that physical existance is a
> condition or expression of meaning.
>
> 6. Sascha Ignjatovic postulates a Godhead/mathematics holistic system
> that may be analagous to infinity. He suggests that to understand the
> whole system, we ought to approach it from several perspectives.
>
> There are now six of us that are willing to take a "wild guess" about
> the nature of non physical pnemomena. With the possible exceptions of
> Walter and Don, I think most of us would admit that we haven't got a
> clue.
>
> At least some of us think that our guesses are pure speculation and
> conjecture. But as Don says, this is CENTRAL. So we're willing to go
> out on a limb to see if there might be some way to get at this forbidden
> non physical fruit.
>
> This is already a remarkable range of ideas. So perhaps we can go
> forward from here. Don says:
>
> > Sorry, what I have been talking about is far more than a mere guess. It has
> > been carefully developed (and ignored) for the last 40 years. It is
rigorous
> > and robust. For me it makes sense out of what we had to guess about before!
> >
>
> We could all go read the book, but that would probably be the end of
> this discussion. So perhaps Don would be willing to boil it down to a
> few main points.
>
> Then maybe we could take those points and edit them into a mutually
> agreed upon framework of sorts. From there we might proceed to discuss
> each of our individual notions.
>
> But perhaps this is to formal. Maybe we should just proceed and let the
> exchanges go without any initial framework.
>
> Don, why don't you take a poll and then take it from there.
>
> Norm McPhail
fire away!
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky