On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > So the world did not exist before man ? >
The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. > > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 > *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to >> explain that? >> > > "come from" is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is > how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. > > Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out > of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is > simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') > outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. > > Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable >> complexification of (this) universe? >> > > Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the > proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of > sense. To make more and more and better sense. > > >> >> >>> >>> 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? >>> >> >> Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become >> scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? >> > > My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the > context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood > as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private > qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from > an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a > theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only > to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. > > Craig > > >> >> >>> >>> We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure >>> particles? What are we assuming about energy? >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>> 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! >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> -- >>> 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/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ. >>> >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7DsdwnspbQoJ. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fyuMqw9VOucJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
