Re: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Does DNA know geometry ? Did DNA create child from zygote by the chance ? =. The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe is extremely low, but not zero. . . . . . If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating even a short book is nearly zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem It means that according to Probability theory it is impossible to create by chance Intellect Existence during 14 billions years after ‘big bang’. Another example. Proteins With Only Left-Handed Components http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c04.htm The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average. That is a rather discouraging chance. To get the feel of that number, let’s look at it with all the 123 zeros: There is, on the average, 1 chance in – 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule would be left-handed! Conclusion: No Conceivable Probability We find that there is no lessening of confusion until one accepts the logic that “intelligent” systems could not arise without an intelligent Designer. http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c04.htm # According to the probability theory to create the origin of life from ' the soup ' of proteins by the chance is 1 from 10^(-255). This quantity is so small that it seems this way of creation is impossible : not by chance the existence began. ==. Question. Does DNA have consciousness to create an intellectual child from zygote? ===… -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi meekerdb God causes everything to happen, so good, evil, cholera, good health, etc. Some of these he prefers, some not. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:12:35 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On 1/18/2013 1:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. That's just silly. He is still described as punishing sins, and in particular the sin of not believing in him and not worshiping him. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. That's the god of deism, not Christianity. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Men didn't create small pox, cholera, or childhood leukemia. Brent Christianity : The belief that a walking dead Jewish deity who was his own father although he always existed, commits suicide by cop, although he didn't really die, in order to give himself permission not to send you to an eternal place of torture that he created for you, but instead to make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically promise him you accept him as your master, so he can cleanse you of an evil force that is present in mankind because a rib-woman and a mud-man were convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice capstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
Hi meekerdb IMHO the default position is that somebody has yet to prove that man's activities are warming the earth. Or even that the earth is warming beyond statistical possibility. Consider this data : [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:18:06 Subject: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice capstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto On 1/18/2013 5:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/ Mars is Melting The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots. NASA Link to story audioListen to this story via streaming audio, a downloadable file, or get help. see captionAugust 7, 2003: It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars. Actually, you won't need the sky map because Mars is so bright and easy to find. Just look south between midnight and dawn on any clear night this month. Mars is that eye-catching red star, outshining everything around it. It's getting brighter every night as Earth and Mars converge for a close encounter on August 27th. Yes, it says,Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. It's late spring at the south pole of Mars, says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it. So what's your point, that summer coming to the south pole of Mars is evidence that fossil fuel burning is not warming the Earth?? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. attachment: vostok_IceCores1.gif
Re: Two Schrodinger cats
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 13:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi all, Naive question... Not being a physicists, I only have a pop-science level of understanding of the MWI. I imagine the multi-verse as a tree, where each time there is more than one possible quantum state we get a branch. I imagine my consciousness moving down the tree. Suppose Mary performs the Schrodinger's cat experiment in her house and Joe does the same in his house. They both keep the animals in the boxes and don't take a peak. Don't tell PETA. They meet for a coffe in a nearby coffeeshop. So now we have four possible universes where Mary and Joe can meet. But from the double slit experiment we know that the cats are both still dead+alive in the current universe. Right? So are Mary and Joe meeting in the fours universes at the same time? Let a = alive, d = dead, and the subscript 1 and 2 distinguishes the two cats, which are independent. Both cats are in a superposed state dead + alive: (a1 + d1) and (a2 + d2), so the two cats configuration is given by (a1 + d1) * (a2 + d2), with * the tensor product. This products is linear and so this give a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2. Mary and Joe don't interact with any cats, so the global state is also a direct tensor product M * J * (a1*a2 + a1*d2 + d1*a2 + d2*a2), which gives: M * J *a1*a2 + M * J *a1*d2 + M * J *d1*a2 + M * J *d2*a2 You can add the normalization constant, which are 1/sqrt(2) times 1/sqrt(2) = 1/2= 1/2 M * J *a1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *a1*d2 + 1/2 M * J *d1*a2 + 1/2 M * J *d2*a2 So the answer to your question is yes. Nice. Thanks Bruno! Welcome! To be sure, the normalizing factor does not mean there are four universes, but most plausibly an infinity of universes, only partitioned in four parts with identical quantum relative measure. Sure, I get that. Am I a set of universes? You can put it in that way. You can be identified by the set of the universes/computations going through your actual states. But that is really a logician, or category theoretician manner of speaking: the identification is some natural morphism. Well I think Bohr made the trick for the atoms. I think he defines once an atom by the set of macroscopic apparatus capable of measuring some set of observable. That can be useful for some reasoning, but also misleading if taken literally, without making clear the assumed ontology. Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even Bohr's take. Logicians often identify a world with a set of proposition (the proposition true in that world). But they identify also a proposition with the a set of worlds (the worlds in which that proposition is true). Doing both identification, you can see a world as a set of set of worlds. That is useful for some semantics of modal logics. What textbook would you recommend on modal logic? (I'm relatively confortable with first-order logic from studying classical AI and also from Prolog). Those are examples of dualities, which abounds in logic, and which can be very useful when used which much care, and very misleading when forgetting that a morphism is not an identity relation. To get the exact number of universes, we should first solve the marriage of gravity with the quantum. And with comp, we should also derive the Quantum from arithmetic (but that's not true, actually: with comp we have directly the infinities of universes). Ok, sounds good but I have to dig deeper. (moving my own understanding of what you're saying beyond the mushiness that it currently is) I can recommend the reading of the book by David Albert Quantum Mechanics and experience(*). It is short and readable. Nice. I bought it and I'm enjoying it so far. To get all the quantum weirdness, and quantum computation, you don't really need the Hilbert Space, a simple linear space, on the complex numbers, is enough, with a good scalar product. It is about infinitely easier to grasp quantum teleportation (and other very weird quantum things) than to derive the structure of the Hydrogen atom from the SWE. Quantum weirdness is simple! I don't follow David Albert on Bohm, and he could have been less quick on the Bell's inequality, ... and Everett, but it provides, imo, the best simplicity/rigor tradeoff to get the main conceptual difficulties of the QM theory. Bruno (*) http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Albert/dp/0674741137 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more
Re: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice capstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
Roger, It should be known to you from your Mechanical Engr schooling that when you add energy to a turbulent medium like the weather, the fluctuations of its properties increases much faster than their average values. Therefore, extreme weather is to be expected before significant average global warming. The only question is if a strong fluctuation will drive us into a new ice age, which is what the Antarctic data you post below suggests. Richard On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO the default position is that somebody has yet to prove that man's activities are warming the earth. Or even that the earth is warming beyond statistical possibility. Consider this data : [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:18:06 Subject: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice capstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto On 1/18/2013 5:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/ Mars is Melting The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots. NASA Link to story audioListen to this story via streaming audio, a downloadable file, or get help. see captionAugust 7, 2003: It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars. Actually, you won't need the sky map because Mars is so bright and easy to find. Just look south between midnight and dawn on any clear night this month. Mars is that eye-catching red star, outshining everything around it. It's getting brighter every night as Earth and Mars converge for a close encounter on August 27th. Yes, it says,Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. It's late spring at the south pole of Mars, says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it. So what's your point, that summer coming to the south pole of Mars is evidence that fossil fuel burning is not warming the Earth?? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. attachment: vostok_IceCores1.gif
Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Brent, you phrased beautifully your reply. Could be shorter: - hogwash - . JM On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/18/2013 1:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. That's just silly. He is still described as punishing sins, and in particular the sin of not believing in him and not worshiping him. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. That's the god of deism, not Christianity. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Men didn't create small pox, cholera, or childhood leukemia. Brent Christianity : The belief that a walking dead Jewish deity who was his own father although he always existed, commits suicide by cop, although he didn't really die, in order to give himself permission not to send you to an eternal place of torture that he created for you, but instead to make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically promise him you accept him as your master, so he can cleanse you of an evil force that is present in mankind because a rib-woman and a mud-man were convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On 1/19/2013 3:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb God causes everything to happen, so good, evil, cholera, good health, etc. Some of these he prefers, some not. Fine, but in that case there's no reason for me to admire, worship, or take any moral instruction from him...even if he existed. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar ice capstoalso melt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
On 1/19/2013 3:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO the default position is that somebody has yet to prove that man's activities are warming the earth. A 'default position' is one taken in a state of ignorance. If you're still ignorant of the evidence and the consensus of 99% of the world's climate scientists that's your own fault. Or even that the earth is warming beyond statistical possibility. Consider this data : Yes, I see that vertical red line at 0, which is really out of date since at 'now' it would be off this graph at 394ppm Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. image/gif
Re: Is there an aether ?
Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? Quantization and organization of space is orchestrated by matter fields which originate from, and follow, exclusive dimensions already existing as matter. Energy being quantized into particles by spontaneously emitted sub-atomic particles (Higgs boson?) in hyperspace. Matter is a continuous, time dependent, and thermodynamically open, self-organizing process. Particles, as they move through the CBR, need to continuously re-ordinate the space that constitutes them. Particles are in constant motion, continuously processing space/information. Matter is formed by this process, and mass increases directly proportional to the amount of process. This is why the denser a particle is, or the faster it moves in relation to other objects, the more massive it becomes. Mass is directly proportional to process. Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with the quantum. Before the quantum there is aether. There can be an aether without quanta, but there can be no quanta without an aether. Matter is dependent on the aether (aka., Higgs field), it depends on the background as an energy supply, hence, wave-particle complementarity. Aether is the empty space on which the universe sits. It is the physicalists' god. -- Laurent http://www.aether-is-one.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Z9HSg63rXMoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect. Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: There are those who believe that the very atoms are necessary in order to preserve a consciousness: making an arbitrarily close copy won't do. From what you have said before, this is what you think, but it goes against any widely accepted biological or physical scientific theory. Since there is no widely accepted biological or physical scientific theory of what consciousness is, that doesn't bother me very much. The assumption by scientists is that consciousness is caused by the brain, and if brain function doesn't change, consciousness doesn't change either. So swapping out atoms in the brain for different atoms of the same kind leaves brain function unchanged and therefore leaves consciousness unchanged also. Also, swapping out atoms in the brain for different atoms of a different but related type, such as a different isotope, leaves brain function unchanged and leaves consciousness unchanged. This is because the brain works using chemical rather than nuclear reactions. It is an assumption but it is consistent with every observation ever made. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy? Craig On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect. Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
