On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
> you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
> there is real prior to our individual observation because
> it is all observed by God.
>  
>

That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have 
never once said that existence is contingent upon *human* consciousness. I 
state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for 
sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms 
of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, 
otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 
>
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>
>  
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> That is such a silly pov. 
>>
>
> Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking 
> about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan 
> idealism.
>  
>
>>  If a boulder
>> fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
>> you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
>>
>
> It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you 
> were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be 
> no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your 
> cells and organs, that's another matter.
>  
>
>>  ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *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 <whats...@gmail.com>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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>>>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7DsdwnspbQoJ.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fyuMqw9VOucJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C3PBZJ4EBFgJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <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/-/2h246HMwB9gJ.
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.

Reply via email to