Dear Ron,
allow me to reply to SOME parts of your long post (including my
remarks and your remarks on them) by just quoting the appropriate
phrase of your 'musings' with my reflection.
The "orig. message" is available on the list.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron McFarland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier

> On 27 Feb 2004 at 16:16, John M wrote:
> > If you just "think" about 100% nothingness,
> >it disappears:  by
> > thinking of it you imply the information of such and that
> > makes it already into "somethingness".
> I can not follow that logic, friend John. I can not hold to
> the philosophical viewpoint that the universe exists because
> it is envisioned. My opinion is 180 to that: all that exists
> does so because the universe is so constructed as to have
> made existence probable. Not certain, but merely probable
> and perhaps not enduring. It is not necessary to think in
> order for something to be true or false. Imagining the
> number zero (nothingness) does not change its attribute.
Please, stop thinking about the world as an elite-scientist,
sitting in his armchair and looking at that darn world. You
and your mind are part of it and if you (just) envision sthg
in your mind it IS in this world.  "180": constructed? by???
-- True or false is our judgement, culture etc. based, upon
info we interpret from the world (nature) in our mind.
The  #'0' is not nothingness, it is a concept with content =
a somethingness.
It may "stand" in your mind for nothingness - not in my thinking though. It stands for a distinct value. (like 12 or 102).

> > Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got
> to
> > get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only?
(>SNIP solipsism) 
> But yes, I did speculate to "outside" factors; I impute to
> the other side of the boundary of our expanding universe
> (the nothingness).
See, your 'nothingness has a boundary! an end, where your
universe 'starts'. Like the folklore chap who sat down at the
rim of the flat Earth and let his feet dangle into nothingness.
> Zero energy does not rule out
> perturbation (virtual particles) as long as those
> perturbations cease to exist.
Perturb nothingness? as long as it "doesn't"?? I am sure you
have a better wording. Virtual particles (imagined?) are sthg
sci-fi, especially within 'nothingness'.  
It is one type of fantasyland (narrative), I wrote another one,
which you rightfully scrutinized below. Read on.
> But how can zero energy be expressed to have a factor called
> eternity? In truth, it can not because space/time and
> matter/energy do not exist within zero energy. Such terms
> belong only within the boundary of a perturbation. From the
> viewpoint of zero energy a perturbation both does, and does
> not, happen simultaneously (it is only a probability).
I don't know about probability. It depends on the model we cut
for application. Cut it wider: Prob. will change. Same with the
statistical "truth": depending on the (maybe wide) pattern we
Eternity is a temporal (nonsense) concept - I try to stay away
from temporal thinking (don't state: I can) so 'eternity' IMO
is sthg atemporal. Infinitely short, e.g. Not 30,0...00+ years.
Matter/energy are terms in reductionist explanations of the
reductionist observations in the physical domain. Cf: modeling.
The "does and does not" does perturb me.
> > I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations...
> > i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate...
> That is a lot to say in so few words! By total dynamic
> exchange, do you mean equilibrium? If so, could equilibrium
> be equivalent to zero energy? What are the attributes of
> this symmetry? How to define that boundary of our universe?
> What causes existence of stress-seeds?
In my narrative I use the "Plenitude" as a necessary prop to
'get to a universe' - nothing more. Not describable features,
no 'info' to circumscribe or define. It is sthg outside our mind
and everything would be fantasy. A bit more can be seen in
the central part of TA62 (Karl Jaspers Forum, Sept 2003)

All attributes I use are goal-oriented: to get to our world without any 'other' narrative of e.g. perturbations of nothingness etc. <G> 

I don't think in 'equilibria' for visualizing unlimited interconnectedness and changes vs the clean-cut models of quantized formalism, so necessary for equilibria. (Again: "in so few words...).


> What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds? I do not yet
> understand why you disagree, as those questions are not
> resolved to my benefit.


In this I agree. Even if 'satisfaction' instead of 'benefit'. What 

causes emergy to do work? What IS energy? Mass? etc. etc.?

> Ron McFarland

[John Mikes]
> ===
> "The idea is that you could understand the world, all of
> nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When
> assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole" (John
> Holland)
> ===


Remeber Aristotle's Aris-Total? which is MORE than the sum of its parts? because he was thinking in "pieces" of it only. Not assemblage qualia, functions, interconnections etc.all in the unit of a complexity. -  - Cf: J.Holland.  =============


Reply via email to