m.a. wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Flammarion" <[email protected]> > To: "Everything List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology > > > > > > On 17 Sep, 14:12, "m.a." <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Flammarion" <[email protected]> >> To: "Everything List" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:17 AM >> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology >> >> >>> On 16 Sep, 21:42, "m.a." <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Flammarion" <[email protected]> >>>> To: "Everything List" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM >>>> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology >>>> >>>>> On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> the ocean of virtual particles which may give >>>>>> rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between matter and >>>>>> thought. >>>>>> >>>>> I see no reason to believe that. >>>>> >>>> I would be most interested in your view of vacuum fluctuations of >>>> virtual >>>> particles. >>>> >>> Why would they differ from what he WP article says? >>> >> Brent Meeker's interpretation of the WP article seems to agree with my >> description. >> > > > that virtual particles might not exist, does not establish that > there is some immaterial thing that does exist. > > If they don't exist, how can they produce real particles?
Who said virtual particles produce real particles. They are computational terms in perturbation expansions. Whether vacuum fluctuations exist is less clear, but all theories point to the total energy of the universe being zero, the positive energy of matter being just balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity - which would imply that particles and the rest of the universe can come out of nothing. Brent > Or are you saying > that those particles themselves might not exist? Are you following Bruno's > idea that the world is immaterial (in the conventional sense) because it is > composed of numbers? > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
