On 28 Feb 2004 at 15:13, John M wrote:
<snip>
> 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
> The "orig. message" is available on the list. John M

Agreed, let's try to save some bandwidth where possible.

> > On 27 Feb 2004 at 16:16, John M wrote:
<snip>
> 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).

Have you ever REALLY tried, very hard, to think about nothing? Our
individual "society of minds" does not allow for it unless one turns a
deaf ear to the constant inner chatter - or one has gone flat line. We
are constantly trying to model in our minds what our limited senses
and what data from our investigative devices report to us. This model
is not reality, it is a very filtered approximation of reality, and
one limited at best to processes performed within and based upon a
very real nature. Insufficient processes, every time, as the model is
always lacking succicient data. But it doesn't much matter because
nature doesn't much care about how our minds model nature, and nature
will consistently do its thing regardless of a modeling process.

True or false is not our judgement, it is our interpretation of an
actual reality. The interpretation is very likely to be flawed in some
respects, and therefore not itself a complete model of reality. If it
is not complete then its premise is not proved via self consistency.
The number zero is a model of a reality, its attribute is the lack of
anything measurable. Putting brackets around nothingness is like
trying to eat with an ear instead of with a mouth. Yes, you can stick
"something" in either model but only one model results in acceptable
repercussions.

> 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),

There is pretty good experimental indication that virtual particles
really do pop in and out of our experiencable universe. To do away
with them requires some sci-fi explanation that I've not yet seen be
proven as decription of reality. But I can not claim that virtual
particles do or do not, or maybe just somethimes they do exist in our
universe. For now, it's the best model for me and many others. The
general concept really does seem to model very well with experimental
evidence.

>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).

>[JM]:
> 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
> counted. 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.

Well, that's because I allude to 2 entirely different frameworks? One
that is composed (or is not composed, take either viewpoint) of
nothingness = eternity? And another one where matter/energy = finite?
A little Alice in Wonderland conceptualization problem with this? What
I argue is very difficult to conceptualize, but it can be done.

> > > I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations... > >SNIP
> > >i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate...
> SNIP
> > 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?
[JM]:
> 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.

Aha! So if one does not perceive then the thing does not exist? Does
it exist if 2 out of 3 do perceive? Where does this line get drawn?
Only at a personal level? Doesn't that then infer that there can be
nothing known for sure beyond the self? Are we to be so lonely!? "I
think, therefore the universe exists."  But I don't think so, so what
does that personal belief do to reality? I'd argue my beliefs per se
are of no consequence to the universe because they are models and not
the actual reality, even if the model is accurate it's still only an
independent model of the "real thing".

>A bit more can be seen in
> the central part of TA62 (Karl Jaspers Forum, Sept 2003)
> http://www.douglas.qc.ca/fdg/kjf/62-TAMIK.htm
> 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...). SNIP > What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds? I do
> not yet > understand why you disagree, as those questions are not >
> resolved to my benefit.

>[JM]: In this I agree. Even if 'satisfaction' instead of
> 'benefit'.What causes energy to do work? What IS energy? Mass? etc.
> etc.? [John Mikes]

But, John! You dodge my questions, it seems, with yet more questions.
I think you're saying the universe is -- because that's the way it is,
end of story. Nobody argues that! We just argue that we're not so sure
that's the end of the story, and we want to know how it came to be
this way, and what its fate is to be. Yes, I can logically define what
causes energy to do work, what energy is, what mass is, and so on
within the scope of this topic (actually, I've already done so!) But
it is your definitions right now that are holding me at curiously
captive attention! <grin>

Ron McFarland

Reply via email to