# Lee Smolin's metaphysical principles

apeiron
Gold Member
The only guy that i know that takes such a view is paul davis, and he is a physicists.
David chalmers believe "EVERYTHING" has some element of primitive mentality.

This is a pretty random set of responses that convince me you are not that widely read on these issues.

Chalmers is nothing like an observer generaliser (he is panpsychic, not pansemiotic). Nozick was taking this approach. Davies endorses some important systems science tenets, like the need to model top-down causality, but is not yet taking the further step of generalising observers.

Don't make the mistake here that observer = consciousness. One is something particular found only in socialised human brains, the other is so general that it encompasses all possible varieties of observer~observed relationships.

Concerning your own apparent frame of reference, the whole reductionist vs realist debate in recent philosophical approaches to causality is not a useful way to dichotomise the argument. It is still fixated on atomism and Newtonianism so still conjures up the standard antithetical positions of dualism and platonism.

This is what I object to in Tooley, Lewis, Kim, Chalmers, et al. They are taking up valuable bandwidth in finding ways to preserve stale old thinking. Discussions people were earnestly having in the 1800s that should have long been consigned to the intellectual dustbin.

The fact that you are studying these guys and probably have never even read Peirce is telling.

This is a pretty random set of responses that convince me you are not that widely read on these issues

Whatever you want.

Chalmers is nothing like an observer generaliser (he is panpsychic, not pansemiotic). Nozick was taking this approach.

Tell me where in nozick body of work?

Davies endorses some important systems science tenets, like the need to model top-down causality, but is not yet taking the further step of generalising observers.

He uses some sort of quantum observer effect. Crazy stuff.

Don't make the mistake here that observer = consciousness. One is something particular found only in socialised human brains, the other is so general that it encompasses all possible varieties of observer~observed relationships.

One way of explaining the collapse of the wave fuction is to invoke the notion of a measurement.

Does measurement need:
1) observer
2) consciousness
3) the exchange of information

I don  t know if 3 is clear for you.

Never mind 3.

do you think 2 reduce to 1, or does it even matter for the "measurement"?

Concerning your own apparent frame of reference, the whole reductionist vs realist debate in recent philosophical approaches to causality is not a useful way to dichotomise the argument.

don t know, but sure.

It is still fixated on atomism and Newtonianism so still conjures up the standard antithetical positions of dualism and platonism.

Explain to me what this means? I have no idea what the hell is atomism, and newtonianism in the context of the laws of nature.

This is what I object to in Tooley, Lewis, Kim, Chalmers, et al. They are taking up valuable bandwidth in finding ways to preserve stale old thinking. Discussions people were earnestly having in the 1800s that should have long been consigned to the intellectual dustbin.

If you mean the old way is the realist view of laws as "physical necessity", i don  t really see any problems.

Are you saying there are observer dependent laws? If so, give me some examples.

The fact that you are studying these guys and probably have never even read Peirce is telling.

Sure. I made no claims to be more well read on the subject of laws of nature, if it matters.

I just want to get back on topic of what the hell you mean by observer-dependent laws. Could you even give me an example? How exactly does this differ from lewis, and armstrong s veiw of law? You need to be clear, precise, and substantive. Give some real arguments, or else it does nothing for me, but perhaps a ego boost for you.