12-JUN-2002
Peter -
Indeed, this is a global speculation; a "cosmological" perspective
appears the simplest, insofar as it is the most primitiv primitive.
Topological is quite correct as well, insofar as we are talking about
departures from a geometrically flat spacetime. But not a
coordinate-dependent correlate of anything. Metric-independent, or
background-free theories are, IMO, the most robust.
Part of my "thinking" is to contribute to language of old and new
interpretations that can be readily shared by physicists,
neurophysiologists, phiosophers, theologians etc., without, most
importantly, a jargon bottleneck, as we have today.
Personally, I don't view philosophy as peripheral, just as most
philosophers should not consider physics as peripheral... that is, it
should not be peripheral in practice. The philosopher should be
physically self-consistent while working, as should the physicist be
philosophical about their vocation, and the insights it reveals.
I'm pleased you so accurately framed my idea. Thanks.
Cheers,
mark
