m.a. wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@dslextreme.com>
> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
>
>
>   
>> m.a. wrote:
>>     
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> From: "Flammarion" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." <marty...@bellsouth.net> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to