Next will be the quirk which will have negative charm and be found sulking where even dark matter dares not tread.
On Mar 28, 4:15 pm, Lonnie Clay <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: > > > 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: > > >>https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/epistemology... > > >> 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 -- 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.
