The problem, in my view, is the term physical. *http://www.thefreedictionary.com/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 granular holism. 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. Craig 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. > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net <javascript:>] > 1/10/2013 > "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 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bG0tolGaLE8J. 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.
