|
From the link you cite:
"Distance across space and time is measured by * motion *"
Okay.
But, shortly thereafter, this is switched to the reverse of the above:
"The nature of the motion of measurement" and
"As measurement is motion"
He starts in the first quote be correctly using "measurement" as the means by which we can (relatively) compare motion, but then he switches to talk about the
motion of measurements. That does not make sense. Motion is a feature of the physical world. Measurement is something that consciousness
does. Consciousness can measure things, including the motion of things. But there must be
things that are moving and they take up space--they aren't a zero. This talk of the
motion of measurements seems to have it exactly backwards. Measurements aren't in motion.
Things that are in motion can be measured. Hence the syllogism in the link is wrong:
"All measurement is motion
Motion is symmetrical
Thus: all measurement is symmetrical"
The syllogism only "works" because of his reversal of the major premise
("All measurement is motion"). The premise he starts with that "Distance
across space and time is measured by * motion *" ("All motion is
measurable.") would actually lead to the following
argument:
All motion is a measurable process.
All motion is symmetrical.
Thus, all measurable processes are symmetrical.
So, I've corrected the major premise by keeping his use of it consistent
(he changes it in the middle of the argument, so he's committing the
fallacy of equivocation) and rendering it true (keeping to his original
definition, not the one he illicitly switches
to later in order to make his argument work). But, once the first
premise is made (mostly) true, the argument is then found to be invalid,
since it contains an illicit minor fallacy (technically: the minor term
is distributed in the conclusion but not in the
premise; incidentally, he also has the premises in the wrong order, but
that's pretty minor). In order to make his argument work, he would have
to somehow establish that "all measurement is motion," which I can't
even fathom what that would mean--it's the
exact reverse of the truth, and a category error (confabulating
concepts of consciousness with concepts of existence).
So, all his talk about "symmetry" is besides the point (I think he gets
that completely wrong too, but that would be an even more detailed point
of science). The bottom line is that, in my view, he is
misunderstanding and hence misusing the more basic concepts
upon which his notion of symmetry is based. In other words, he is
trying to do something with his concept of symmetry on an incorrect
foundation, so his conclusions about consciousness being infinite do not
follow. His argument amounts to the claim that consciousness
is infinite because the world isn't (he says it it is sizeless and
timeless, which is completely contradicted by the obvious observable
facts to the contrary: we see things all the time that take up space and
exist for some amount of time). He "deduces" this
not by appealing to physical, verifiable evidence but from a stream of
abstractions that he got from
where? Some quotes from Einstein who was making a totally
different point? I don't get his argument at all. Perhaps, you could
point out where I am misunderstanding it.
|
Respond
No comments:
Post a Comment