http://www.jyi.org/SCC/Images/Articles/74/nebula.jpg


I am pure science. Action and reaction. Newton. And now they argue that I'm something that can't be known. That I am also Einstein. The so-called Quantum mechanism of the brain. Situated in the limbic system. Russell Rierson mentioned something call microtubules.

And now the evil materialists who call themselves "actualists" are communicating nothing more than "you are guilty of being a human animal, punish yourself or join our cult."

So much bullshit information is out there. Now I'm sounding like Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3520928490902653527&q=DENIS+LEARY&total=1009&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The EPI approach may remind students of philosophy of the famous adage of "the cave" of the Greek philosopher Plato. A person born and raised in isolation in a cave sees shadows on the wall cast by people outside the cave. From these he concludes that the shadows ARE the people. Here is an example where the acquired information level I is much less than the intrinsic level J defining the people outside. That is, the information efficiency constant obeys κ<<1.

This has a parallel in the philosophy of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant [5] :

Man observes a phenomenon that is only a sensory version of the "true" effect, the latter called a noumenon. Hence the noumenon is some unknown, perhaps unknowable, absolute statement of the nature of the effect. Man cannot know the absolute noumenon, and so contents himself with merely observing it as a phenomenon, within the limited dimensionality of some sensory framework. Various frameworks have been used for this purpose through the ages: witchcraft, astrology, religion or (most recently) differential equations! How does EPI fit within this scheme, and can it perhaps provide an absolute framework for defining the noumenon?

The framework is in fact provided by the notion of observation. A noumenon is an unknown physical process. To be identified as a noumenon, it must first be observed. (There might be unobservable noumena, such as possible parallel universes, but we will not consider these here.) The observation is an absolute truth about the noumenon. This is in the sense that it is known to exist (but not that the observation is totally accurate, by the way).

The observation is thus an absolute description of a noumenon. This despite being a generally inaccurate description. To exist, it must be observed.

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/frieden/Section_6.htm