On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:52:49 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> > On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> >> On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel (like
> >> > other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"? I consider
> >> > the
> >> > explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at
> >> > level
> >> > of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500
> >> > in
> >> > 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we
> >> > develop
> >> > upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as
> >> > parts
> >> > of a "PHYSICAL World".
> >> > It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind
> >> > (consciousness???)
> >> Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes.
> > That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most
> > fallacies.
> I suppose you could say causes outside of the physical universe, such
> as God or top-down causation by consciousness, are part of nature and
> part of physics, but most people would not use these words this way.
>From my view, there is no public physical universe that is not also private
physical experience. There is no unseen light, no unheard sound, to unfelt
bodies. To me, "outside the physical universe" means only a dream or
imagination, where what is felt is uncoupled from public effect. While we
dream, our body remains present in its inertial frame of animal experience,
but it has no perspective of its own.
People's words are outdated. We have played out a hand that was picked
centuries ago by dead geniuses. Since then we have not had a chance to
pause and reassess what the strange new ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg
really mean when we look at the implications of them from the absolute
perspective. We have been playing with gigantic machines to study the
fantastically distant and tiny, but no matter how far we go, it
increasingly doesn't make sense when compared with our own experience, and
it increasingly doesn't make sense itself.
Multisense Realism is a way to acknowledge that this has become a wild
goose chase, and posits that if we start over from scratch, it becomes more
sensible to see relativity as identical to perceived awareness, and all
physical forces naturally fall out of that awareness as elaboration of
sensory motive inertia. Two different feelers sharing the same feeling are
entangled. They are not particles but if a third feeler will feel a
particulate stimulation from them. Space and time might be created here, by
the disentanglement - the indifference and entropy which extends out in
response to the significance of making a difference with sense interaction.
> Stathis Papaioannou
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.