I don't think we know Awori - but then I was confined to chemistry. There's something called 2,0 Theory in which our world is the shadow world of one of a greater number of dimensions including more than one dimension of time - but even if the physicists play with the numbers of modern science in this it has shades of Plato. We are not much better off in terms of origin than the tale of the world held up by a turtle. We ask what holds the turtle up and are told it's another turtle and after that turtles all the way down. Currently, even red shift is under question owing to stars that still seem too old - and so on.
On Mar 31, 5:56 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > The phrase, the 'universe is expanding'...is commonly thrown around in > every day texts on cosmology, but no one seems to explain where 'it' is > expanding to? > > Is there an unbounded, timeless,...event free zone out there, that > 'our'universe is expanding to? Are outer boundaries of the universe, the > beginning or the end of time/information. > > Any intelligent answers to a non physicist like me? > > AA > On Mar 29, 2012 1:23 AM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I probably agree all that Craig. > > > On Mar 28, 1:53 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > On Mar 28, 4:42 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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_sou...). > > > > 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'. > > > > > On Mar 27, 1:34 pm, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Neil > > > > > > I'll take your final statement... we are missing something > > > > > > May be the missing something is part of the structure itself and it > > is > > > > > the leif motive of science. > > > > > She looks for the missing something > > > > > > IMO I agree with the "missing" part of the idea, but I certainly > > doubt > > > > > about the "thing". > > > > > > The vacuum idea has its fundamentals, somewhere must be a vacuum, but > > > > > also in that same instance there is a "missing" idea which > > contradicts > > > > > the vacuum itself. > > > > > > Should not be bad to install a concept which is at the same time > > empty > > > > > and missing .... ? > > > > > > carlos > > > > > > On 26 mar, 19:21, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I tend to prefer the likes of dark matter to fixed belief in blue > > and > > > > > > white rabbit gods Craig - but you are right that much more is > > > > > > speculative than we credit and we are missing something. > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 4:01 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 9:59 am, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > A singularity of your 'everythingness' is electron. > > > > > > > > An electron is a part of the universe. The singularity can only > > be the > > > > > > > entire universe. > > > > > > > > > The richness of material world begun from fluctuation - > > > > > > > > - polarization of primordial vacuum . > > > > > > > > Fluctuation in what way? Emptiness regularly becoming emptiness? > > What > > > > > > > could it mean for a vacuum to have any properties whatsoever? > > > > > > > > > ==. > > > > > > > > Why electron is responsible for fluctuations in a vacuum? > > > > > > > > Because an electron has its own m mass and q charge. > > > > > > > > But (according to QED) by interaction with vacuum electron’s > > > > > > > > mass and charge becomes infinite ( electron is hidden in vacuum > > > > > > > > and we say he is virtual particle – antiparticle - > > antielectron – > > > > > > > > positron) > > > > > > > > To me it's much more likely to be a just-so story to plug the > > > > > > > equations. The equations don't take sense into account so they > > are > > > > > > > probably wrongly interpreted and we have to make up all kinds of > > > > > > > science fiction to save the model. > > > > > > > > If an electron is responsible for fluctuations in a vacuum then > > the > > > > > > > fluctuations are in the electron, not in the vacuum. The vacuum > > is > > > > > > > empty. There's nothing there to fluctuate. Virtual particle is > > just a > > > > > > > name for the fact that we don't understand what is going on and > > wish > > > > > > > for a deus ex particulus to save ourselves from the reality of > > having > > > > > > > to start over from scratch and reinterpret all of physics. It's > > just > > > > > > > stubborn sentimentality but now it it metastasizing into fanciful > > > > > > > delusions. > > > > > > > > > And when we see the 'fluctuations' of vacuum it means electron > > > > > > > > appears from vacuum, electron again acquire its usual mass and > > charge. > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
