Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Bruno Marchal The self-reference to phenomenol perception shows up in the monad for an object, which is always from that monad's pov. The convolution operator is just a conjecture, since it appears in systems theory and signal processing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution In mathematics and, in particular, functional analysis, convolution is a mathematical operation on two functions f and g, producing a third function that is typically viewed as a modified version of one of the original functions, giving the area overlap between the two functions as a function of the amount that one of the original functions is translated. Convolution is similar to cross-correlation. It has applications that include probability, statistics, c omputer vision, image and signal processing, electrical engineering, and differential equations. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 06:08:26 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I seem to have been using words sloppily. You can't get away with that with a mathematician :-) Let me try again. The phenomenol is what appears to be out there. OK, but it is not only that. In fact, with the exception of truth, all hypostases are epistemological modalities of self-reference. And yes, the experience of it is internal. And you said: I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need just to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp p). That works! I was thinking of Secondness as that black box. With Firstness as the input signal and Thirdness as the output signal. That's weird. Of course I use 1p and 3p in some precise technical sense for the UD argument, and then again in some related sense, but formal, in the interview of the universal machine. Then you have a typical linear system (if that's the right word). I was suggesting that the box be the convolution function, as in systems theory. You might perhaps elaborate on this. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The senses convert the phenomenol space-time world out there I don't grasp how something phenomenal can be out there. into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored internally as memories. A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Space-time is also experienced internally. All experience are internal. Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts MY view of the physical into its corresponding personal nonphysical state. I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need just to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp p). That works! Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), Lines and circles are spatial geometries. They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then geometry is a word having many interpretation too. and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on deep dreams/computations. It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some primitive space time. A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences in 'time' then you can have
Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Stephen P. King Ultimately the PEH. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 17:47:35 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 1/16/2013 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a slide show. Hi Roger, What determines the sequencing of the 'slides' and their rate of transition? -- 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. -- 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: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:54:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? You said Potential energy is more than conceptual, so I am explaining why I disagree. Potential energy is entirely conceptual, just like any other potential, virtual, or symbolic value. Energy is a way of keeping track of what could happen, just as money is a way of keeping track of what people could do. Without people, we can see that money is just paper and numbers and metal bars. Without matter, energy is similarly nothing at all. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Bruno Marchal The senses convert the phenomenol space-time world out there into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored internally as memories. A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts MY view of the physical into its corresponding personal nonphysical state. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), Lines and circles are spatial geometries. They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then geometry is a word having many interpretation too. and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on deep dreams/computations. It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some primitive space time. A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re-present the commonality which we understand internally but as an exteriorized, generic symbol. As you know, with comp, it is the concrete real substance which belong to the (quite useful locally) metaphors. Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing itself - it has no power to do anything by itself, it is pure fiction (albeit fiction which is informative about sense on all levels of realism, but only from the fictional 3p voyeur perspective). That is coherent with non-comp, indeed. But I have no faith in substances. Bruno Craig Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of arbitrary functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Bruno Marchal I seem to have been using words sloppily. You can't get away with that with a mathematician :-) Let me try again. The phenomenol is what appears to be out there. And yes, the experience of it is internal. And you said: I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need just to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp p). That works! I was thinking of Secondness as that black box. With Firstness as the input signal and Thirdness as the output signal. Then you have a typical linear system (if that's the right word). I was suggesting that the box be the convolution function, as in systems theory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The senses convert the phenomenol space-time world out there I don't grasp how something phenomenal can be out there. into nonphysical perceived entities which are stored internally as memories. A memory is experienced internally, so no space-time. Space-time is also experienced internally. All experience are internal. Then one might say that 1p is the black box that converts MY view of the physical into its corresponding personal nonphysical state. I am OK with this, but no need of a black post in comp. We need just to relate God-arithmetical-truth, and the machine beliefs. (Bp p). That works! Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? I don't see why we cannot have purely mathematical waves (easily related to lines and circles), Lines and circles are spatial geometries. They can, but usually I take them as deeper than geometry, but then geometry is a word having many interpretation too. and physical waves, like water wave or tsunami, or sound waves. A propagating wave is a sort of oscillation contagious to its neighborhood. All of those are spatio-temporal sensory experiences and presences. I don't think that an experience can be spatio-temporal. With comp I argued that space-time emerges from coherence conditions on deep dreams/computations. It looks like you are working in a theory which assume some primitive space time. A purely mathematical wave which is independent of all spatial or temporal representation can only be a figurative wave. If you have concretely real substances in 'space' or concretely real experiences in 'time' then you can have a figurative language which refers to the wavy qualities which we infer through sense as being correlated on either side of the public-private range of presentation. This wavy-ness is an idea, a metaphorical figure which we use to re- present the commonality which we understand internally but as an exteriorized, generic symbol. As you know, with comp, it is the concrete real substance which belong to the (quite useful locally) metaphors. Once we have formalized this synthetic wave figure quantitatively, we can do all kinds of incredible things with it, just as a painter uses a certain kind of brushstroke. But the strokeness isn't a thing itself - it has no power to do anything by itself, it is pure fiction (albeit fiction which is informative about sense on all levels of realism, but only from the fictional 3p voyeur perspective). That is coherent with non-comp, indeed. But I have no faith in substances. Bruno Craig Summing waves gives arbitrary functions (in some functional spaces), so simple wave can be see as the base in the space of arbitrary functions (for reasonable functional spaces, there are any natural restrictions here). The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of where you can find an electron, for an example. I would say it is something physical (even if it emerges from the non physical relations between numbers). Bruno On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a slide show. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 11:23:57 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently sensitive. I do. In my model of reality all matter is full of sensitive monads, Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds, each perceiving all other monads instantly, How? And where does the Calabi-Yau CM come from? That is just simple string theory. You know that don't you? It seems to me that perception is a process (unlike consciousness, despite strong relation). As a physical process, it can't be simultaneous. Here i was making a pun with the perception of Liebniz's monads who claim to be able to perceive the entire universe however with some fuzziness. I could have well used the reflection of all the jewels in Indras pearls or the 1/r mapping of the Calabi-Yau Compact manifolds. I agree that perception is a algorithmic process. We apparently disagree on how simultaneous the process can be. I claim instant processing based on it being a frictionless BEC where thoughts are instantaneous. Richard Bruno as in indra's net of jewels in buddhism. 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. -- 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Richard Ruquist OK--- in the mind. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:45:18 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO this is necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI and Feynman renormalization. Richard -- 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- 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. -- 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
Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO this is necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI and Feynman renormalization. Richard -- 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Roger wrote: but EM waves are physical (electrons) However, EM waves collapse to photons, not electrons. And I would put EM waves on the mental side and photons on the physical side. But light seems to bridge the boundary. Richard -- 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: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being physical, the other, like mind, moving simulataneously in the nonphysical world beyond spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from
