What I have been doing is exploring the soft underbelly of physics,
those sets of "truths" that are just assumed to be true. For example, I
have become convinced that a lot of the difficulties in physics are due
to its assumption that "substance" is primitive. There is even an entire
article in the online Stanford encyclopedia
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/> on the notion of
substance and therein is laid out the problems for all to see,
never-the-less science staggers on, assuming that "stuff" is the
explanation to every phenomena. The Higgs boson is, IMHO, yet another
example of the "stuff" mentality. The alternative is to consider that
"process" is primitive; that all forms of "stuff" are, ultimately, the
result of some underlying process; there is no such thing as primitive
You can see how this kinda dovetails with Bruno's anti-materialism
and yet he seems to just fall over into "immaterial" stuff. :_( With
process we can get some interesting hints of answers to many of these
questions that vex us so such as the nature of time and even
consciousness. Logic is recast in terms of interactive game theory (ala
Jaakko Hintikka) <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-games/> and
physics becomes a question of how spaces evolve relative to each other
(this is already been understood every since Lagrange and Hamilton).
It all really boils down to "belief systems" as you wisely point
On 7/10/2012 4:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, a 'belief system' may be reassuring.
I spent a lifetime in active R&D exercising conventional science, till
I lost by belief in many figments of it. It came gradually like one's
losing a religious faith: trying to THINK 'outside the box' and
getting nowhere. (First reflection: I am poorly informed and my
conclusions are inaccurate).
Then the extension of our worldview into items still unknown, as
exemplified by the gradual enrichment in our epistemic inventory over
the millennia. We are NOT at the perfection's end...Some more yet has
got to come and I braced myself for surprises.
I cannot recall when and where, but allegedly prof. Higgs repealed his
work at his old age - how sorry it would be if true.
The observations upon which science is based supply only explained
information, accurate and complete to the level of the 'era'. Then
explanations are applied based on assumptions, presumptions, nth level
consequences of such and sometimes recalled/changed.
Bruno's and my agnosticism are based on some basic 'faith' to start
from: his from numerals, arithmetic (I think) mine from a never
learnable infinite complexity of which we only know a portion.
Everybody has a personal choice whether to include the Higgs boson in
his/her personal worldview. And there are many others...
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Say that it is not so!
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at