3 ms·
Semantics methinks. Without minds, there is light, but no wavelengths. Wavelengths are the names we give to aspects of a _shared formalism_ which is applied to
by dota_fanatic 8y ago
Semantics methinks. Without minds, there is light, but no wavelengths. Wavelengths are the names we give to aspects of a _shared formalism_ which is applied to light. Do wavelengths _exist_, or are they an extremely convenient system of formalism that "matches" enough to be useful? Much like Newtonian is useful, but not "real". Color, wavelength, photons, waves, all useful fictions to lesser and greater degrees for intelligent agents, but do they "exist"? When one person sees red, another person also sees red, and not instead blue. Because it is the same wavelength. Because it is the same light.
Personally, I think there's good evidence towards the truth of a universal morality as laid out by Christopher Alexander in his texts "The Nature of Order", an interpretation that looks to the order of all matter in the universe... not just consciousness. Ie it's not "on top of", it just looks to what is, and wonders how we can learn from this and apply it to "our" ends. Interestingly, if humans were more in tune with the order of nature, there would certainly be a lot less suffering on this planet, and a much much better outlook for the future. ;)