The problem, in my view, is the term physical.
"1.* a. * Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or
spirit. See Synonyms at bodily <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bodily>.
* b. * Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a
physical dance performance.
* c. * *Slang* Involving or characterized by violence: "A real cop
would get physical" (TV Guide).
*2. * Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
*3. * Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with
them, especially physics."
If 'physical' deals with bodies, matter, and energy, then all forces,
fields, spaces and times would have to be physical. Matter by definition is
measurable spatially, and energy is measurable as functions over time, so
you couldn't have physics without them
The fussing over physical vs non-physical is to me a red herring, as the
more important understanding is the distinction between public
presentations (literal sense of matter, space, time, and energy) and
private presentations (figurative sense of 'what matters', 'put into
place', timing, and qualitative 'energy' (feeling, effort)).
When we say that something is a 'big deal', how do we know that we are
talking about something of importance? What's the connection between
literal size and figurative significance? The answer to that exposes the
implicit coherence of sense itself, in all of its monadic/Indra's Net-like
To me it is abundantly obvious that all forces are private intentions
making themselves public, and all fields are public sensations making their
private integration public. While matter can be too small or too diffuse to
be visible to human beings, no body or particle can be intangible or
wavelike on its own level of description. Wherever we find that ambiguity,
we have neglected completely the possibility of matter as sensitive agents
and have presumed a nonsensical, literalized carrier of 'force' or 'field'
across public space.
Once we understand that the development of privacy is the fundamental
function of physics, then the question of whether something is physical or
not becomes absurd. There is nothing that isn't physical, because physics
is sensory-motor participation, and there can never be anything which is
not a sensory-motor phenomenon.
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:10:07 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
> Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not.
> That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein.
> That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view
> that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment,
> that there is no aether, is now obsolete.
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at