The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible
for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to
factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you
get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric
emptiness full mass.
What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath
the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance,
and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically
obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory
appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite -
meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses.
It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning
and instrumental assumptions.
What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?
We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure
particles? What are we assuming about energy?
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote:
> Empty Space is not Empty!
> The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's
> gravitational aether.
> No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And
> gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.
> Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the
> space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism.
> You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though
> they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the
> kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.
> Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation,
> but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems
> like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle
> complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate?
> Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism?
> Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein
> got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.
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