Hi,
Very short of time but quickly:
Thanks for the detail. We agree that at least 1 existent is known directly. I wonder if Dick accepts that?
Reading you quote my words back at me; my words were rather unreasonable; there was no real evidence that you were following Dick; I was jumping on the bandwagon there as hadn't heard about my "differentiating physics itself" post. But I haven't posted a reply I wrote to you re: " Reply to Luis Hamburgh" either. Time issues.
Quote: "I think you agree with me, Alan, that there exists some direct knowledge of some of existence" we agree.
"I think Russell had the correct solution to the strange loop problem: simply disallow the mixing of different logical types in a single assertion."
Exactly: called a "category error".
Suppose you acknowledge one change exists (the verb 'happen' requires this if thought happens).
A change has two states; before, after (or this side, that side; etc.). Two states of something.
So already we have 3;
A, B, C: state A of C; state B of C.
Now: Suppose just one more existent; so now have the second one called L, M, N.
L state of N. M state of N.
Now look at the possibilites:
A state of C, B state of C A of N, B of N
L of N, M of N L of C, M of C
A of C, M of C A of N, M of N
B of C, M of C B of N, M of N
A of C, L of C A of N, L of N
B of C, L of C B of N, L of N
Notice symmetry groups in the above. This is the beginning of describing "Existence 'space'" one might suppose.
I could map out objects with four states; more 2-state objects; all the combinations and permutations.
I could map physics into this; obtain patterns you can not have, and paterns you may have. I suspect I could deduce all what Dick did theoretically- it's similar situation isn't it?
10-D strings, Schrodinger, Einstein's relativity, Quantum mechanics, etc.- all mappaple surely?
Plus can explain thought (comparing and matching patterns) the self (like yaw/pitch/roll- three rotations where two can equal the third, or all three cancel to give stationary object), Lorentz transformations; and lots of physics now not even dreamed of?
Who knows?
Regards,
Alan |