Hi Marsha,
> Greetings John, > > When physicists state that photons are 'real', what do you think > they mean? I believe they mean something social, Marsh - intersubjective agreement. It leads one to an interesting thought experiment. Suppose one researcher just couldn't "see" the evidence? What if 10 had a problem? What if more than half? When does something become actually real? > Or when someone states gravity is 'real'. what do > suppose they mean? I've even heard a physicist state that particle > spin is not just a mathematical equation, but is something 'real'. > I believe this - photon, gravity, particle spin - is supposed to > represent something having independent existence in an external > world. But what has happened is a conceptual construct abstracted > from interdependent processes has been analyzed into being a > real object. > As an idealist, I have a problem with that label because after all, ideas are "real" too. > If by "no serious thinker" you mean you and I, well then, okay... > > Actually it's a Royce quote, taken from his World and Individual and in his Supplementary essay, he gives credit for the development of his argument to F.H. Bradley. So by "no serious thinker" we can construe... you, me, Royce, Bradley, James, Peirce, Pirsig and most of MD. Proud company! John 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
