Magnus said to Adrie: Ok, yes, I remember the squirrel. And yes, spatial statements like "around" does of course depend on the observer's position, just like political statements like right and left depend on some baseline in the middle. But I'm not sure we can generalize those examples to all? other levels. I'm probably not seeing what you want me to see here.
dmb butts in: As I understand it, the squirrel scene is not about differences in perspective. It's supposed to illustrate the power of pragmatism to distinguish the difference between a real dispute and one that's merely verbal. The two camps seemed to be in disagreement about whether or not the man ever got "around" the squirrel, even though they all agreed about what actually happened. They all saw it happen and yet some said he did and some said he didn't. Asked to settle the dispute, James wondered what practical difference it made. By posing this question, the disputants realized that they didn't really disagree about what happened. It's just that they were using two different meanings of the term "around". Did the man get around the squirrel? Some said yes and some said no but the only real difference was in what they took "around" to mean. So their dispute was merely verbal and therefore meaningless. Did the man ever catch the squirrel? Nope. Good thing too. Those things bite and scratch like hell. You'd have to be nuts to catch a squirrel. I haven't been following this thread, really, but something Einstein said leapt to mind as I was going by the other day. He said something like, space and time are not the stage on which the drama of the universe unfolds, they are part of the drama. I think Hawking's idea that there was a singularity prior to the big bang goes along quite nicely with that idea. If I understand this picture, time and space and matter and energy are different manifestations of the same thing and exist only in relation to one another, as in E=Mc2, where mass is a certain amount of condensed energy. Just about any equation is essentially a description of their relations. In that sense, space and time are just as physical as matter, an equal feature of the same fabric. It's a beautiful picture. The Big Bang is more like the Big Unfolding. The singularity from which the whole universe exploded was not some empty nothingness. It was more like all of reality folded in on itself and packed into a tiny suitcase small enough for a flea to carry in his hand. In that singularity all the equations were perfectly balanced. It was a perfect symmetry in every way such that there was no time or space or matter or energy. Not yet. But, the story goes, something tipped it ever so slightly, the symmetry was broken and BANG! We're in the midst of that ongoing explosion at this moment. Watch your head! > > Magnus > > > > > > On 2010-09-06 11:46, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > > ah, okay Magnus, i will make a suggestion to set gravity aside for this > > moment , and move on it later on, > > > > ok, i think it will become important, because it will show something > > > > I suppose you have the e-book lila, can you go to page 212-213, and read the > > squirrel part James introduced, and was recognised by pirsig? > > > > Than, if you re-read the parts we discussed on general relativity, > > relativity, quantum physiks, the many worlds interpretation Hawing > > is supporting as the momental mainstream science,pay special attention to > > the part is was pointing to as for the relative position of the observer > > > > James , Pirsig, Einstein,Hawking all on 1 line, in a sequence of recognised > > patterns regarding reality. saying the same,it takes a visionair to > > recognise a visionair > > > > i think it becomes important to list it up, sequentially. > > and set it to be read in one artikel, will take us some time i guess, its > > only a proposal of course. > > i'm still investigating this push-pull model of you, there seems to be some > > evidence, but very difficult to understand. > > working on it, probably it is not in conflict with Hawkings idea's, or > > general relativity, or supersymmetry > > probably it resides in the supersymetry-model.it willt ake time, the product > > is there. > > So can you read page 212-213, and recognise what James and Pirsig are > > saying? > > greetzz,Adrie > > > > 2010/9/6 Magnus Berg<[email protected]> > > > >> Hi Adrie > >> > >> Getting hard to distinguish the signals from all the noise around here. > >> Soon I'll start using Thunderbird's spam filter to cancel out the worst. > >> > >> Anyway, I was able to read some of the links you sent yesterday. Very > >> interesting, this geoid form vs the freatic surface. But I'm really not > >> sure > >> if it can be used to hint either way on the gravity push/pull issue? But > >> perhaps that wasn't your intention? > >> > >> I also read the MWI page, at least parts of it. And even it sounds very > >> much like the quality event, I'm a little uncertain as to why it is > >> important here? > >> > >> Magnus > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2010-09-05 15:10, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > >> > >>> Okay , lets compare , for now to explore our the geoidform of the earth,to > >>> make it possible to crossrefer this geoid > >>> to the freatic surface,the geoid shape is very important Magnus, can you > >>> read it carefully, and keep in mind that i want to compare the geoid shape > >>> with the freatic surface. > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> And after that This will be the follow up, after we compared the geoid > >>> with > >>> the freatic field. > >>> > >>> It will lead to a field making your interpretation on gravity as good as > >>> any > >>> other scientifically projection, without conflicting other matters. > >>> It is surely nessesary to avoid conflicting matters, otherwise we will end > >>> up in a non-existing meta-gravity, that serves no purpose > >>> from the beginning. > >>> All details matter. > >>> > >>> Okay , this will be the field i propose, The many worlds interpretation, > >>> parented by Stephen Hawking,but he is incorporating all quantum physiks in > >>> his model, and the conflicting matter i was mentioning earlier, about the > >>> relative/absolute position of the observer is in conflict with the > >>> quantum-states supported by Hawking.In the Q P there is no absolute > >>> position > >>> unless proven. > >>> But for now , you can find what i'm pointing towards, in this regard, > >>> under > >>> "Interpreting waveform or function collapse" > >>> This will give the answer as to why its better to leave the absolute > >>> position as observer.Hawking's copenhagen interpretation is interwoven > >>> with > >>> that model,the relative model.the relative model is dynamical , the > >>> absolute > >>> is statical. > >>> Your clever enough to find it yourself, and than read our earlier matter > >>> back. > >>> I will come back on this later on, but i think its good to read yourself > >>> in > >>> a little bit in advance. > >>> Probably you will notice that Hawking allows multiple realitys and > >>> explains > >>> them, you will also notice that this material is not in conflict with any > >>> OTHER possible reality or history.Hawking merges all reality's. > >>> But as i come to think about it, you were the only one brave and bold > >>> enough > >>> to step into Andy's code, and to recognise the embedded > >>> idea within the formulation, so you are a very clever guy, i agree that > >>> the > >>> model was very difficult to peel open. > >>> > >>> greetzz, Adrie > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2010/9/5 ADRIE KINTZIGER<[email protected]> > >>> > >>> No, i only meant to say, Magnus, that accelerating is not in conflict > >>>> with > >>>> cooling down,and that there is evidence for the cooling down, > >>>> I was clumsy. > >>>> > >>>> Adrie > >>>> > >>>> 2010/9/5 Magnus Berg<[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Adrie > >>>>> > >>>>> "ADRIE KINTZIGER"<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> --quote,Magnus > >>>>>> Another line of thought is what Horse mentioned the other day. If > >>>>>> gravity > >>>>>> comes from space, and space is expanding, then it should get weaker > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> time. If we can find evidence that gravity was higher when the sun and > >>>>>> > >>>>> our > >>>>> > >>>>>> planets formed, then that could be a smoking gun. But I doubt anyone > >>>>>> has > >>>>>> searched for such evidence > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes , the universe is speeding up and cooling down at the same time, > >>>>>> > >>>>> there > >>>>> > >>>>>> is evidence for the cooling down and sedating. > >>>>>> This is not in conflict with accelerating speed. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That was a bit unclear. Of course "speeding up" is not in conflict with > >>>>> "accelerating speed", they are the same thing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Did something I say make you think I thought something conflicted? > >>>>> > >>>>> Magnus > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list > >>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >>>>> Archives: > >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> parser > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Moq_Discuss mailing list > >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >> Archives: > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > >> > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
