Hi Bruno Marchal I understand your point, which is correct as long as there is a body in the field.
But consider the quantum wavicle of a photon. It is just a quantum wave before it hits a photographic plate, at which point it becomes a distinct photon. The quantum form of the photon before it hits the plate is a probability field with probability <1 all over the universe. Since p <1, it doesn't physically exist, it is nonphysical. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 13:05:33 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:37, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the > definition below, > a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".....that > would > act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" > tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence > itself. > > A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits > the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball > tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the > gravitational field itself. > It has no physical existence, only potential existence. > > Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only > detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) > > http://science.yourdictionary.com/field > > field > > "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction > of a force, > such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, > that would > act on a body at any given point in that region. " But they are talking on physical space and physical time, about physical forces, which means locally measurable in our local physical reality (which comp explains as being something real, even if emergent from the first pov of numbers in numberland). Gravitational fields, in GR, are physical deformation of a physical space-time. We can't see any force, we can only measure effects, but this does not make the force non physical. I use physical informally to denote anything related to what we can observe and measure and made testable prediction on, in our "physical reality". What is that, andf where does it come from? That is the question I am interested in, and comp here does not just suggest an answer, if imposes an answer and the math suggests that the (ideally correct) machine's theory is more Platonist than Aristotelian. With comp, nothing *fundamental* is physical, but the physical is still something fundamental for our type of consciousness to be selected in statistically stable and sharable histories. Bruno > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/8/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 > Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. > > > > > On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: > > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories > quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. > > > This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" > are not physical? > It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, > or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field > theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which > "particles" become field singularities, but they have the usual > observable properties making them physical, even "material". > With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and > physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains > physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet > on what is directly accessible by measurement. > > > May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in > different sense. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/7/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 > Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. > > > On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi meekerdb >> >> Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are >> inconsistent >> if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. > > > All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist > theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non > physical things with some class of physical phenomena. > > Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter > fundamentally exists". But comp is already contradicting "weak > materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among > possible other things). > > Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist > ( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are > still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is > explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is > entirely "ontologically" justified in pure math). > > Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess > what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their > neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this. > > Bruno > > >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/6/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42 >> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. >> >> >> On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi meekerdb >> >> Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and >> functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't >> materialists. >> >> So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism >> can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/6/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09 >> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. >> >> >> On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma >> (such as materialism) any day. >> >> It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being >> dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved >> metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all >> immaterial. >> >> Brent >> >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: >> 01/03/13 >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything- >> l...@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 >> . >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything- >> l...@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 >> . >> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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 > . > > > > > -- > 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 > . > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > -- > 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 > . > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. -- 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.
