----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@dslextreme.com> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:49 PM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
> > m.a. wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@dslextreme.com> >> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:47 PM >> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology >> >> >> >>> m.a. wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Flammarion" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> >>>>>>> To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." <marty...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the ocean of virtual particles which may give >>>>>>>>> rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between matter and >>>>>>>>> thought. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see no reason to believe that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be most interested in your view of vacuum fluctuations of >>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>> particles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why would they differ from what he WP article says? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Brent Meeker's interpretation of the WP article seems to agree with my >>>>> description.that virtual particles might not exist, does not establish >>>>> that >>>>> >>>> there is some immaterial thing that does exist. If they don't exist, >>>> how >>>> can they produce real particles? >>>> >> >> >> >>> Who said virtual particles produce real particles. They are >>> computational terms in perturbation expansions. Whether vacuum >>> fluctuations exist is less clear, but all theories point to the total >>> energy of the universe being zero, the positive energy of matter being >>> just balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity - which would >>> imply that particles and the rest of the universe can come out of >>> nothing. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> Brent, I apologize for misrepresenting your position but I don't see >> where >> it undermines mine. I >> said that virtual particles exist between matter and thought. You say >> they >> are "computational terms" and the rest of the universe came out of >> nothing. >> Perhaps I should just have said that they are pure thought...as are >> computational terms. No? >> > > So does being "pure thought" mean "without a reference", i.e. a > fiction? As in "Sherlock Holmes" is a pure thought? > > Brent I feel I may still have an argument but lack the philo-physical "chops" to make it, so I'll stifle here. > >> marty a. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
