m.a. wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Meeker" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:47 PM > Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology > > > >> m.a. 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 >> > > Brent, I apologize for misrepresenting your position but I don't see where > it undermines mine. I > said that virtual particles exist between matter and thought. You say they > are "computational terms" and the rest of the universe came out of nothing. > Perhaps I should just have said that they are pure thought...as are > computational terms. No? >
So does being "pure thought" mean "without a reference", i.e. a fiction? As in "Sherlock Holmes" is a pure thought? Brent > marty a. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
