On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 3:55:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2019 7:50 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:34:30 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> Le??jeu. 25 avr. 2019 ????15:23, <[email protected]> a ??crit??: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 1:18:44 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 2:42 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if >>>>> not by top-down influence in levels from consciousness ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> At the molecular level, if this were true, we would see miracles >>>> happening, like a table levitating without any applied force. No such >>>> thing >>>> has ever been observed. Neurons and muscle cells only fire according to >>>> the >>>> laws of physics. If you documented an example of a miracle in the brain >>>> you >>>> would overthrow science and be famous. >>>> -- >>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The "laws of physics" are not a static thing, in terms of history. One >>> can say the "laws of physics" are in 2019 "The Standard Model" (about 40 >>> years old now) and maybe some others like electromagnetism. Before 1900 >>> there was no quantum mechanics that was a part of "laws of physics". There >>> are also chemical and neurobiological "laws" that have become a part of >>> science that also address "neurons and other cells". >>> >>> The "laws of physics" may be different in?? 2119 than in 2019. What we >>> "list" as "laws of physics" changes over time. >>> >> >> It does change to explain experimental data not explained by current >> theories.... Here there should be experiment which put evidence to >> extraordinary behavior not explained/explainable by current theories. >> >> If you can provide no test, and all the tests we do are explainable by >> current theories, why the need to invoke invisible horses ? >> >> Quentin >> > > > > There is data from astronomy that involves what people have called "dark > matter". There is no theory yet that physicists have rallied around to > "explain" this data. > > Can you derive today a dark-matter theory from The Standard Model + > General Relativity? > > What is this theory? Is it written down in arXiv somewhere? > > > Ooooh.?? A dark matter theory of consciousness.???? Can we work quantum > gravity in there too? > > Brent >
What about a panpsychist theory of dark matter? *Dark matter is matter that is shy. * - pt -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
