On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 6:04:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/24/2020 3:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 1:47:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> Vic wasn't right about everything. An elementary particle is an element >> of a mathematical theory to. And the fact that particles appear simply as >> a consequence of assuming an accelerated coordinate system, argues for >> regarding them as excitations of a field which is then more fundamental. >> What is considered real isn't some deep question to be answered by >> meta-physical contemplation. It's just a choice, part of choosing a >> theory. Vic emphasized operational the importance of operational >> definitions; and the operational definition of "real" was it kicks back >> when you kick it. But what counts as kicking and kicking back is also >> theory dependent. >> >> Brent >> >> > > Is there an example of a field (in theory) with no associated particle? > > > Gravity...as far as we know. > > Brent > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness > ? > > > >
OK. Actually this was the example of a field I was thinking of where a particle doesn't seem to be specified: *Consciousness emerges in molecules through an interaction with a universal proto-consciousness field that is congruent or identical with vacuum fluctuations.* http://www.gregmatloff.com/Edge%20Science%20Matloff-ES29.pdf :) @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a643ff7-5279-4aba-a823-b78fe30be9fc%40googlegroups.com.
