Thus the intrinsic elements rigthly belong to a set of points in the ball, while exterior points are on the sphere or outside of it. Both sets relate as in Gaussian surfaces. The interior points are confinements within Riemannian coordnates as enclosed by a point at infinity. Mike Atovigba.
On 3/28/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > ============================================================================= > Today's Topic Summary > ============================================================================= > > Group: [email protected] > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > - The Modern Rift Between Physics and Philosophy #3 [2 Updates] > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/9b2f3454e023686 > - The processing of information [4 Updates] > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/852b920bacbb31b6 > - Where does the information come from? [2 Updates] > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/395ebeb96daacbb6 > > > ============================================================================= > Topic: The Modern Rift Between Physics and Philosophy #3 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/9b2f3454e023686 > ============================================================================= > > ---------- 1 of 2 ---------- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 08:35AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/b6219c8561d8054d > > On Feb 24, 12:49 am, Richard Hake <[email protected]> wrote: > ==. > > PHYSICS and PHILOSOPHY > ===. > Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’. By Steven Weinberg. > Page 66. > ‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they > working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental > problem of its interpretation. > . . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . . > our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite > promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped > out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the > ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said: > ‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!) > ===. > Conclusion. > Don’t try to understand quantum theory if you want reach success. > ==. > > > ---------- 2 of 2 ---------- > From: Lonnie Clay <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 08:40AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/450b2b57ae478458 > > <|sigh*|><|sigh|> LOL > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > ============================================================================= > Topic: The processing of information > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/852b920bacbb31b6 > ============================================================================= > > ---------- 1 of 4 ---------- > From: Lonnie Clay <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 07:20AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/921324294d0f0f21 > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/epistemology/OV6-uW2qy7Y > > Is a thread which I have been following for some time now. Rather than > stick my oar in there, I am starting a new thread on a related topic. > fundamental -> interactions -> medium -> instruments -> raw observations -> > transmission -> processing -> correlation -> interpretation -> understanding > > At each step of the way from the fundamental to our understanding of what > is happening, errors can be introduced, most commonly at the stage of > interpretation. We achieve a consensus of what is reality through the > scientific method among other tools. So the four elements earth, air, fire, > and water of the ancients have evolved into a few quarks or so in modern > theory, along the way passing through the stage of trillions of molecules, > a couple hundred "elements", and a similar number of subatomic particles. > Nature did not change its structure during the evolution of our > understanding, it was just our interpretation that evolved. I have to > wonder as we close in on the last of the hypothesized quarks if we are > about to unfold a strange landscape of various colors and flavors lying > beneath the quarks... > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > ---------- 2 of 4 ---------- > From: Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 07:46AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/13b160253b5043fb > > The loop also runs in the other direction: > understanding -> motive -> expectation -> experiment design -> instrument > design -> experiment -> analysis -> projected medium, interactions, and > fundamentals. > > In this direction, each step invites a false confidence of self-fulfilling > feedback which privileges the more empirically testable phenomena over the > more elusive influences. This accumulates exponentially as each material > instrument, experiment, and hypothesis directs our attention further into > materialism, until we reach the point with QM and Information Theory that > we cannot recognize subjective phenomenology as anything other than objects > even when we are looking right at it. > > Craig > > On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:20:52 AM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: > > > ---------- 3 of 4 ---------- > From: awori achoka <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 08:09AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/9b24d61b67d90b65 > > Lonnie, then we shall discover that there are no quarks...it's us who are > quarky in our understanding of nature. > > > ---------- 4 of 4 ---------- > From: Lonnie Clay <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 08:15AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/96497bac4a53fbe4 > > Yes indeed "We found what we were looking for", "it fulfilled our hopes and > expectations", "we have achieved our goal of understanding...", LOL LOL LOL > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:46:03 AM UTC-7, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > ============================================================================= > Topic: Where does the information come from? > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/395ebeb96daacbb6 > ============================================================================= > > ---------- 1 of 2 ---------- > From: archytas <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 01:42AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/5d59cd5c6729ec2a > > We know bacteria engage in a lot of activity we often regard > as ;special to human consciousness' (short article here - > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327215704.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+UK). > It's not that long since we were completely unaware of this > 'world' (revealed through the 'magic' of glass). One view of vacuum > is that it is full yet statistically empty in our addressing of it. > We have problems in our use of words like 'things' and 'stuff' > Carlos. I once seemed stuck in endless consideration of social > construction and the reification of social facts - god knows > sociologists can be very boring! We label our accounting devices as > quarks, strings or whatever - such only having meaning in language and > that language has the chance to be right or dumb. Information strikes > me as a thing in some circumstances - like clues in a detective > investigation - or even if I raise a glass in salute to you Carlos and > you never know. But neither of these has to be a thing in the sense > my dog (Maxwell) is - and of course he has a rather different place in > my affections than a rock in the garden. Maxwell's nose-based > information world is very different from ours - he will have read 30 > or so 'dog newspapers' before I get him to his favourite field in half > an hour's time. Yet we walk the same path. I would love to know as > he knows, but the odd glance of joy from him is enough. He is now > strutting about the house in apparent huff as I'm running late this > morning. Fuck knows what our various bacteria are 'thinking'. > One can end up in phenomenology and the separation of ideas and > thought and Heidegger's need to find clearing in which trees in bloom > have to be grounded in real experience for us to remember they have > 'backs'. Not much use if you can't work out Nazis are evil. I > sometimes call Max 'Clerk' but he doesn't get it. He's just wandered > past flashing his dog smile, has a Platonic affair with our female > cat, both more real than the grin of the Cheshire Cat - yet again this > is labelling the real. Even the mythical Cheshire Cat is "real" in > what we mean by it, but if I start stroking one I've gone mad. > And so the vacuum is a Cheshire Cat and yet it makes more sense to be > going looking for the vacuum than the myth because of our suspicions > on its reality being realer than that of the mythical. A glass isn't > empty until we drain it of air. At that point it's emptier than it > was before in our shorthand language, but is only emptier of air. So > is what's left a thing? Or full of them? Smarter cookies than us > play in this void to us and find Casimir effects we then label as real > because we can do the trick again (or at least someone with the > special knowledge can). > We structure reality. Some of the ways we do this are intelligent, > others, like economics and politics, unbearably stupid. In terms of > the empty at the same time missing, we have spent most of our time as > a species making myths on the concept (the absent yet all encompassing > god etc.). God isn't real and yet might be -as might be the time we > see the vacuum rather than detect what travels in it - what hidden > information effects may spur us to search? Even they may be 'real'. > > > > ---------- 2 of 2 ---------- > From: Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > Date: Mar 28 05:53AM -0700 > Url: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/855e066ac80553c6 > > What you are talking about is really is the main thrust of what I am > working on - Multisense Realism. To paraphrase Robert Anton Wilson, > everything is real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and > unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. By > mapping out the broadest categories and seeing the symmetries between > them, I think we can actually get a much more accurate and inclusive > model of consciousness and cosmos than we are currently working with. > > In doing this, I see that all of the weirdness that we see in quantum > mechanics suggest that what we are looking at is a Cheshire Cat and > not a meat and fur cat. They are the signs and signals matter uses to > perceive itself, not matter itself. We are using objects in the world > of our body as our only trusted instruments and then mistaking their > feelings and meanings for other, smaller objects. > > Once we change our interpretation of the lowest level (which doesn't > require any adjustment to the math) of the exterior realism of the > cosmos so that it is a most common sense realism of the interior of > the cosmos, then we can begin to build a model of how our own rich > interiority arises. In my understanding, interior realism is very much > the opposite of exterior realism in every way, so that as matter seems > to build assemblies of fragments from the bottom up, pscyhe seems to > divide multiplicities of wholeness (gestalts) from the top down as > well. It is subtractive rather than additive, making sense connections > by cutting through obstructions and revealing an underlying wholeness > which was 'there' already (discovered as well as invented). > > Exterior realism is half as multiplexed as interior realism, with an > unambiguous arrow of time (which looks like 'collapsed wave functions' > at the 'classical limit). It is a black and white sense of the > universe which reflects only the most common bands of sense from the > shared inner states of all phenomena which our body interacts with. > Interior realism, in keeping with the metaphor, is a full spectrum > color sense of the universe which has deeper, and more subtle > awareness, but the deeper it is, the more private and ineffable it > becomes as it reaches for indivisible wholeness itself. To recover > externally viable sense from the innermost esoteric layers requires > figurative encapsulation - archetypes, metaphors, symbols, words, > formulas, math...loose ranges along the continuum from most subjective > and ambiguous to most objective and empirical. > > Craig > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
