OK. I was rowing my apparently virtual boat merrily down the stream. But
apparently that's not interesting enough. :-)
VIRTUAL is just a word. "AS-IF" would be a good synonym. The physicists
in question are trying to make sense of a *model* of appearances (how
the world appears to them when they look). They can be 100% predictive
(in the article now, 98% predictive) and be 100% not talking about what
reality is made of. The reason is that they build the phenomenal
consciousness of the scientists into all laws whilst creating a set of
laws of appearances that entirely and permanently fail to predict
phenomenal consicousness. A system I am entirely fed up with and choose
mostly to resign myself to (in the sense of I give up arguing about it).
Reality can be made of interacting 'somethings', where that 'something'
has not even been uttered yet in any physics ever, and the results in
the paper would still be as they are because all the scientists are
doing is organising appearances.
So in terms of the use of the word 'virtual' you seem to want to discuss
... yes, it is 'as-if' the universe were made of <pick your fave from
the zoo of particle/antiparticle pairs>. But the universe could
_actually_ be made of something completely different and they'll never
know because they never let them consider the possibility of separation
of "appearance" and "structure"(that creates appearances in humans made
of the structure). So ....
"According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality, to
'Confirmation' (insofar as consistency with a model does that) of
virtual particles as a model of appearances cannot be confused with a
'virtual' or 'AS-IF' confirmation. Scientists don't act 'as if' they do
science. They actually do it, even if it's only the 'appearances' half
of the pair of possible science models). So the above sentence conflates
terms, which is why I thought you weren't serious.
Getting back in boat, assuming merrily mode. It's as if I am rowing,
Kim Jones wrote:
> Oh, somebody will stick their head up soon and disagree. Where would
> all the fun and games be if some rash, working scientist actually
> confirmed something?
> Counting angels on pinheads is a very satisfying intellectual pastime
> for some - always was, always will be...
> On 24/11/2008, at 7:18 AM, Tom Caylor wrote:
>> I posted a comment to this article:
>> "According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
>> something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
>> CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality, to
>> On Nov 22, 6:45 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I knew it....
>>> "Row row row your boat
>>> Gently down the stream
>>> Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily
>>> Life is but a dream."
>>> Is actually a law of nature...
>>> Colin Hales
>>> Kim Jones wrote:
>>>> What's your definition of "reality"?
>>>> It is whatever it is.
>>>> It should be the roots of our knowledge and beliefs. It is what
>>>> us bet on the physical realities, on the psychological realities, on
>>>> the arithmetical realities and many other related realities, ...
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" 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