As i was reading this , Steve , the waterpart took my attention. quote Dan, "Water is just water" Hyperealism.
quote Steve," The sentence "water is composed of one part oxygen to two parts hydrogen" is thought to get us closer to the essence of what water really is than the sentences "water is healthy" or "water is wet" or "water is life." Now a simplified model on top of it, i will enhance it a little bit to make my point. For a pinguin or a polar-bear , water is ice , solid as a rock, having and owning the properties of granite. his reality. For a fish, water is transparant, fluid, and his world to live in,...-outside of this observable reality, there is no other. For a chemical company, steam, overheated water is only vapor with the properties of a gas. this is an observable and valid reality. For a physicist, Plasma, superoverheated steam from millions of degrees hot is maximum diffusion of matter and energy. this is an observable reality. Subseqentally, for a Physicist water is not only oxygen and hydrogen, but also Deuterium in a part of 1/9000, called heavy water hidden among the hydrogen/oxygen molecules and atoms. This deuterium, in the water, delivers the propulsing fuel for hydrogen bombs, such as tested in the Bikini atol, or the tsar Bomba. this product is in your drinking water. The different appearances of matter, reality. all these realitys are true and possible to occur at the same time, all truths and realitys are observable , and not in conflict with the moq. they are congruent. Hawkings many worlds interpretation take's the same point of view derived from the formulating work of Hawking. "all previous history's are possible, and therefore , by association, all possible future's at the same time", (1)....this is about as congruent with Pirsig's moq impression as it can get. different reality's are possible at the same time. Pirsig states, postulates that they must be observable realitys. Hawking is not conflicting this in his many worlds interpretation,therefor it became mainstream science. Hawking is also incredibly strong in avoiding to conflict Heisenbergs Copenhagen postulate. ! As is Pirsig,...., and i do not agree on Pirsig's Bohr/hardliner interpretation of Copehagen .Heisenbergs minimal interpretation is closer to reality. Pirsig's message is flawlessly congruent with hawking's interpretations. So concluding, in review of your question about 'moron', Hawking is a moron with an iq that is totally of scale in the stanford binet test, and all others. And to quote Hawking on this matter,.....people bragging about their iq's, are mostly idiots. this as an aside. (1) this is the part as where Hawking imported supersymmetry and quantum physiks into his model, but i left it out for obvious reasons. (the possible observable quantum-states allow all possible observable reality's, present , history, and future.) i can make it transparant if requested. So enough for today, these are only some impressions. Greetz, Adrie 2010/9/15 Steven Peterson <peterson.st...@gmail.com> > Hi John, Horse, Marsha, > > I hesitate to conclude that Hawking is a moron since there is so much > evidence to the contrary. > > What I hope he means by "philosophy is dead" is that philosophy as > Plato's project of getting beyond appearances to get us in touch with > reality as it really is has run its course and outlived its > usefulness. If so, I think Pirsig and any pragmatist would agree. On > the other hand, what I suspect he does mean is that science has proven > itself to be the one true way of getting us in touch with reality as > it really is. I suspect that he thinks scientific descriptions have > some privileged status over other sorts of descriptions. The sentence > "water is composed of one part oxygen to two parts hydrogen" is > thought to get us closer to the essence of what water really is than > the sentences "water is healthy" or "water is wet" or "water is life." > Someone who spends all his time thinking about theoretical physics may > start to think that a grand unifying theory in physics will be a > theory of everything. The fact that everything perhaps _can_ be given > a physical description will never mean that everything only ever > _should_ be thought of in physical terms. > > Best, > Steve > 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
