Re: Is there an aether ?
On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:55, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason, and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs, being objective (3p), cannot be free of error. OK. Only the consciousness root of our subjectivity is undoubtable and cannot been made wrong. The objective is what is doubtable, and indeed science progresses by refuting the objective theories. Only faith (1p), being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error. OK. But not all the subjective. On some point the subjective can be wrong too. Obviously I cannot prove that. Comp can prove that for all ideally correct machines, there are true but non expressible fact. And also that there are true, expressible, but non justifiable facts. Machine's subjectivity is very rich and variate. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? Hi Roger, On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO. But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology. To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if everyone can access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable human text, but like all prose, it does not need literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big- enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire). Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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
Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason, and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs, being objective (3p), cannot be free of error. Only faith (1p), being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error. Obviously I cannot prove that. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? Hi Roger, On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO. But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology. To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if everyone can access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable human text, but like all prose, it does not need literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big-enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire). Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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. -- 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
Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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. -- 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. 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:41, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: WHAT 'evidences'??? I don't see what you are talking about. The word evidences does not appear in the quote. we have no way to judge them. We can bet on relations between them. We either accept the (belief-based) figment as REAL - i.e. TRUE, or not. No, we only build hypothesis, and study the interpretations of them, and their local adequacy with facts. We don't have to pronounce on the truth, except at the pause coffee (or other psychoactive substances). The first case we call 'evidence'. Or: justification. Then base our belief (even system) on such. Looks fine for me. Justification are always based on hypothesis, that we can assume plausible with different degree of local applications. For the big picture all theories are wrong, but some might be less wrong than others. Bruno John (M) On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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- l...@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- l...@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 . 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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. -- 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. 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part of reality. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years. Mechanism is not a part of something. It is a proposition about the possibility of surviving with an artificial brain of some sort. Then we get a quantitative explanation of how the laws of physics evolved---logico-arithmetically, sufficiently precise to test the hypothesis. Don't confuse science-fiction and theoretical reasoning. They can overlap, but are different things. Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ . 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 . 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:59:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part of reality. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years. Mechanism is not a part of something. It is a proposition about the possibility of surviving with an artificial brain of some sort. Is there anything other than mechanism in the universe in your use of mechanism? Then we get a quantitative explanation of how the laws of physics evolved---logico-arithmetically, sufficiently precise to test the hypothesis. Don't confuse science-fiction and theoretical reasoning. They can overlap, but are different things. They are different things, but sometimes we like to think that one is the other. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ. 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/-/Jd-t9onQ4nkJ. 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 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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- l...@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- l...@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 . 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
Bruno: WHAT 'evidences'??? we have no way to judge them. We either *accept* the (belief-based) figment as REAL - i.e. TRUE, *or not*. The first case we call 'evidence'. Or: justification. Then base our belief (even system) on such. John (M) On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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. -- 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. 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 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: Is there an aether ?
Hi Stephen P. King Agreed, the constant other observer needed to maintain the world when I close my eyes need not be God, But it has to be something like God. Omnipresent, for example. Plato called it the One. Nothing would work without physical laws, and these cannot be directly perceived. Gravity, for example, cannot be perceived. Force also cannot be perceived, only its effects. And time and space cannot be observed. cannot be directly perceived. And do I fall on the floor when I turn out the lights at night because it is too dark to see my bed ? The list of counterfactuals goes on and on. So I say that, whatever the cause, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 08:39:30 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. Hi Roger, This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; it server only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is real. When we consider large numbers of observers that can communicate with each other meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and have no need for the excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less meaningful when we see that the point of view of such an entity cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the God hypothesis irrelevant. Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role again for mathematics puzzles me! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time as humans, wouldn't there be a strange population of objects, and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being in the same space ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. 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? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity
Re: Is there an aether ?
Dear Roger, That which cannot be perceived, does not exist. But perception is a subtle thing! Is there an entity associated with physical laws or 'gravity', or are such an abstract concept that we 'percept' conceptually? Perception, beliefs, knowledge all seems tied together... But I would add that just be cause our language paints a particular picture in our minds, there need not be anything like such 'outside of us'. How fast we forget the lesson we can can find in Descartes /Meditations/... On 1/23/2013 5:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Agreed, the constant other observer needed to maintain the world when I close my eyes need not be God, But it has to be something like God. Omnipresent, for example. Plato called it the One. Nothing would work without physical laws, and these cannot be directly perceived. Gravity, for example, cannot be perceived. Force also cannot be perceived, only its effects. And time and space cannot be observed. cannot be directly perceived. And do I fall on the floor when I turn out the lights at night because it is too dark to see my bed ? The list of counterfactuals goes on and on. So I say that, whatever the cause, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-22, 08:39:30 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. Hi Roger, This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; it server only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is real. When we consider large numbers of observers that can communicate with each other meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and have no need for the excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less meaningful when we see that the point of view of such an entity cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the God hypothesis irrelevant. Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role again for mathematics puzzles me! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 ?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? I think so. In earlier presentations I said that comp can make a bridge between Cantor realism and Brouwer idealism/intuitionism/ constructivism. But I eventually realize that when people hate other people, they all hate even more the diplomats and the bridge. But a lot of the Heraclitean insight does make sense in the parmenidean realm once we recognize the unavoidability of the first person perspective. Bruno 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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 . -- 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 . 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. Bruno 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:21:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time as humans, They do, of course. They experience what they are able to experience of the world just as we do. wouldn't there be a strange population of objects, and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being in the same space ? No, there would be exactly what there is. If a child experiences a kitchen counter as being a place that is too high to reach, does that preclude an adult from seeing that same kitchen counter as being a surface which is reached conveniently? If you sit in a room with your wife on one side of the couch, does that mean that the experience of the room can't also exist in which you are on the other side of the couch? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:38:50 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon *human*consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: 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. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. 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
Re: Is there an aether ?
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part of reality. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ. 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: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. 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? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig 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
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. Hi Roger, This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; it server only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is real. When we consider large numbers of observers that can communicate with each other meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and have no need for the excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less meaningful when we see that the point of view of such an entity cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the God hypothesis irrelevant. Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role again for mathematics puzzles me! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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. -- 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: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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/-/OmwLFfn7ecsJ. 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: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. 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? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig 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
Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: 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. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. 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? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig 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=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://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
Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: 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. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? 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? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions 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=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://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. -- 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: Is there an aether ?
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: 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. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. 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? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig 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=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://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 everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
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: 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.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity. No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether does not exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it further. John K Clark My understanding is that light has the same velocity as 'change' or 'news' does, which is always 'the maximum possible rate in spacetime'. Light is not literally present in a vacuum, but manifests only in the sensory-motor qualities of matter. Its velocity is virtual. Craig -- 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/-/NkFR9yeGUvsJ. 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 Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity. No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether does not exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it further. John K Clark My understanding is that light has the same velocity as 'change' or 'news' does, which is always 'the maximum possible rate in spacetime'. Light is not literally present in a vacuum, but manifests only in the sensory-motor qualities of matter. Its velocity is virtual. Craig What makes you think that light is not present in a vacuum? Richard -- 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/-/NkFR9yeGUvsJ. 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: Is there an aether ?
On Friday, January 11, 2013 2:02:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity. No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether does not exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it further. John K Clark My understanding is that light has the same velocity as 'change' or 'news' does, which is always 'the maximum possible rate in spacetime'. Light is not literally present in a vacuum, but manifests only in the sensory-motor qualities of matter. Its velocity is virtual. Craig What makes you think that light is not present in a vacuum? My thinking is that: 1. We wouldn't know the difference if light was or was not present in a vacuum. 2. The only reason we assume that light is present in a vacuum is if we assume that light behaves like a substance. 3. Light clearly does not behave like a substance. It doesn't accumulate or exist independently of illuminated substances. 4. If light was actually only present at the source and target objects of illumination, we would get exactly the kinds of results when we looked at the behavior of light (velocity = c, mass = 0, ambiguous/paradoxical model of photon, odd non-local effects as seen in double-slit, can't slow down in a vacuum, etc) 5. What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation. A microwave oven cooks water in food, but doesn't warm the walls like a conventional oven. This gives a hint at how EM effects arise from composition, scale, and structure of matter, not from bombardment by particles or waves which concretely exist in space. 6. Once we have sensitivity as a fundamental principle of matter, we don't need to assume that everything is involuntarily pushed and pulled around - there can be consensual participation on all levels. Just as we feel the conditions of our environment and it influences our disposition, so too does everything in the entire universe have detection capacities of different sorts. The capacity of all matter to detect and respond to all matter is electromagnetism - i.e. electromagnetism is what sensory-motor interaction looks like from a distance. From this, we have a clear basis for biological narratives, human consciousness, etc. We are made of sensory-motor capacities on multiple levels. We see a summary of what our retinal cells see, not an abstract code generated by 'signals' and converted invisibly in a solipsistic never-never land. Craig Richard -- 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/-/NkFR9yeGUvsJ. 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/-/LU_9vM29gesJ. 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 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation. That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they couldn't make it work and I doubt that you can either. You seem to be ignoring that there is already a unified theory of EM than includes light and it explains things like static electricity and electric motors as well as most light phenomena. And it does not explain photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you need quantum electrodynamics. 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: Is there an aether ?
On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation. That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they couldn't make it work and I doubt that you can either. You seem to be ignoring that there is already a unified theory of EM than includes light and it explains things like static electricity and electric motors as well as most light phenomena. And it does not explain photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you need quantum electrodynamics. I'm not suggesting a literal emission/absorption across space. I say 'transmitter-receiver' in the figurative sense, as empathy or money are 'sent'. Static electricity and electric motors seen in the behavior of matter, not in a vacuum. There is no reason why all observed effects of EM would not be local to (sensory-motive) matter. Craig 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/-/ZOIp8lgoG8EJ. 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 1/11/2013 2:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation. That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they couldn't make it work and I doubt that you can either. You seem to be ignoring that there is already a unified theory of EM than includes light and it explains things like static electricity and electric motors as well as most light phenomena. And it does not explain photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you need quantum electrodynamics. I'm not suggesting a literal emission/absorption across space. I say 'transmitter-receiver' in the figurative sense, as empathy or money are 'sent'. Static electricity and electric motors seen in the behavior of matter, not in a vacuum. There is no reason why all observed effects of EM would not be local to (sensory-motive) matter. They can't all be local because that violates Lorentz invariance. But of course if you want to do it 'figuratively' you can do anything you want. Maybe you can write instructions on how to be a liberal metaphysician. 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: Is there an aether ?
On Friday, January 11, 2013 5:45:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/11/2013 2:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation. That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they couldn't make it work and I doubt that you can either. You seem to be ignoring that there is already a unified theory of EM than includes light and it explains things like static electricity and electric motors as well as most light phenomena. And it does not explain photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you need quantum electrodynamics. I'm not suggesting a literal emission/absorption across space. I say 'transmitter-receiver' in the figurative sense, as empathy or money are 'sent'. Static electricity and electric motors seen in the behavior of matter, not in a vacuum. There is no reason why all observed effects of EM would not be local to (sensory-motive) matter. They can't all be local because that violates Lorentz invariance. Local to all matter in the universe, not to any particular instantiation of matter. But of course if you want to do it 'figuratively' you can do anything you want. Maybe you can write instructions on how to be a liberal metaphysician. It's not 'anything I want', it's just a different interpretation of energy which, as far as I can tell, would be consistent on all levels of observation. By definition it doesn't contradict any existing theory, but it just models the observations which any theory is based on as material changes conducted non-spatially. I am flipping the entire concept of energy over. It isn't separate from matter. Energy is nothing but what matter does. Not what space does, not what photons do, but what atoms do, or more precisely, what is seen and done through atoms. Craig 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/-/Axe_7SIT1PYJ. 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 problem, in my view, is the term physical. *http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical* 1.* a. * Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bodily. * b. * Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a physical dance performance. * c. * *Slang* Involving or characterized by violence: A real cop would get physical (TV Guide). *2. * Of or relating to material things: our physical environment. *3. * Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics. If 'physical' deals with bodies, matter, and energy, then all forces, fields, spaces and times would have to be physical. Matter by definition is measurable spatially, and energy is measurable as functions over time, so you couldn't have physics without them The fussing over physical vs non-physical is to me a red herring, as the more important understanding is the distinction between public presentations (literal sense of matter, space, time, and energy) and private presentations (figurative sense of 'what matters', 'put into place', timing, and qualitative 'energy' (feeling, effort)). When we say that something is a 'big deal', how do we know that we are talking about something of importance? What's the connection between literal size and figurative significance? The answer to that exposes the implicit coherence of sense itself, in all of its monadic/Indra's Net-like granular holism. To me it is abundantly obvious that all forces are private intentions making themselves public, and all fields are public sensations making their private integration public. While matter can be too small or too diffuse to be visible to human beings, no body or particle can be intangible or wavelike on its own level of description. Wherever we find that ambiguity, we have neglected completely the possibility of matter as sensitive agents and have presumed a nonsensical, literalized carrier of 'force' or 'field' across public space. Once we understand that the development of privacy is the fundamental function of physics, then the question of whether something is physical or not becomes absurd. There is nothing that isn't physical, because physics is sensory-motor participation, and there can never be anything which is not a sensory-motor phenomenon. Craig On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:10:07 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not. That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein. That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment, that there is no aether, is now obsolete. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -- 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/-/bG0tolGaLE8J. 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 10 Jan 2013, at 14:10, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not. That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein. That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment, that there is no aether, is now obsolete. See my early comment on the physical. I define the physical by the relatively observable, and this is defined in term of number relations (and collection of number relations). It generalizes relativity theory (like I think QM-Everett already does). In the wiki quote, there is an idea that the quantum vacuum is a sort of aether. I cannot judge as I have no idea of what aether means. There is a suggestion that Dark matter is aether. Well, I have no idea what Dark matter but then it took me 40 years to figure out what matter can be, and not be. We will see. I am not advocating any truth. I just try to share my fascination that with some special hypothesis we can use math to put light on all this. The first shock should be the realization that we are still very ignorant on the fundamental matters. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - -- 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 . 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
