subject:"the curse of materialism"



On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

  
  
  On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
  
  
  
  On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King   
  wrote: 
  On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
   That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in   
  the 
   mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some   
  kind 
   of underlying conputation) 
  
  Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why   
  3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic   
  arithmetic takes some work). 
  
  Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum   
  of distance. 
  
  In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit   
  exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth.  You   
  are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem   
  for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure   
  mathematics exists make any sense to me. 
  
  I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear. 

 Of course. 




  My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern   
  recognition, 

 Can you define pattern recognition without arithmetic or equivalent? 
 I doubt. 


Pattern recognition is the private presentation of experience. It has no 
further definition because it is an ontological primitive. Arithmetic adds 
an expectation of reliability and precision to that fundamental nature, but 
reliability and precision are also private presentations of experience as 
well. Certainly the capacity to experience the pattern of wetness or 
dizzyness need not supervene on any arithmetic basis. 


 We have a different methodology. I start from what people agree on,   
 like simple arithmetic, and computationalism, then i derive from this.   
 But you start from your intuition. 


I start from the recognition that what people agree on, or think they agree 
on, is also intuition. You start by overlooking the intuition behind the 
initial agreements on what are actually complex intellectual products of 
human civilization. Your intuition is that these products, because of their 
seeming universality and circular validation of themselves, are a potential 
replacement for the conscious reasoning which has 
invented/discovered/refined them. I see that as clearly a confirmation bias 
amplified by selective disqualification.
 


 If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot   
 derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of   
 computer. 


You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist is 
if arithmetic is irreducible? Okay, prove that.
 

 Then everything around me does not make sense.


Why?
 

 If you   
 believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a   
 literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and   
 multiplication in the sense I would wait for. 


I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing or 
understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive sensory-motor 
experiences. Addition and multiplication are not literal phenomena, rather 
they are analytical descriptions and interpretations of phenomena which are 
either bodies in space, experiences through time, or combinations and 
continuations thereof. To get to addition, you need to have an experience 
of counting, of memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary 
coherence and multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and 
representation...so many things... I have repeated this several times, why 
do you act as if I have been silent on this point?




  which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material   
  realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of   
  other private representations, it has no public existence which is   
  independent of sense, 

 Assuming what? 


Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin air? 



  nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to   
  any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist   
  independently of sense. 
  
  Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that. 

 In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the   
 foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or   
 semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have   
 already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this.   
 It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine   
 cannot support thinking. 


It's not sad if I'm right. To me it's sad that we are seriously considering 
that machines could generate thinking based on nothing but superficial 
correspondences to behavior,

Re: the curse of materialism

2013-01-21 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
 wrote:
 On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
  That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in
 the
  mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some
 kind
  of underlying conputation)

 Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why
 3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic
 arithmetic takes some work).

 Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum
 of distance.

 In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit
 exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth.  You
 are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem
 for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure
 mathematics exists make any sense to me.

 I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear.

Of course.




 My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern
 recognition,

Can you define pattern recognition without arithmetic or equivalent?
I doubt.

Pattern recognition is the private presentation of experience. It  
has no further definition because it is an ontological primitive.  
Arithmetic adds an expectation of reliability and precision to that  
fundamental nature, but reliability and precision are also private  
presentations of experience as well. Certainly the capacity to  
experience the pattern of wetness or dizzyness need not supervene on  
any arithmetic basis.



We have a different methodology. I start from what people agree on,
like simple arithmetic, and computationalism, then i derive from this.
But you start from your intuition.

I start from the recognition that what people agree on, or think  
they agree on, is also intuition. You start by overlooking the  
intuition behind the initial agreements on what are actually complex  
intellectual products of human civilization. Your intuition is that  
these products, because of their seeming universality and circular  
validation of themselves, are a potential replacement for the  
conscious reasoning which has invented/discovered/refined them. I  
see that as clearly a confirmation bias amplified by selective  
disqualification.



If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer.

You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can  
exist is if arithmetic is irreducible?


I did not say that. I was saying that you have to assume the numbers  
and plus+times (or equivalent) to define pattern recognition,  
computers, etc. If you take pattern recognition as primitive, you  
don't help me to understand anything you say.






Okay, prove that.

Then everything around me does not make sense.

Why?


Because without computer in reality, I have one mystery more: how is  
it that I can send you a mail?






If you
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a
literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and
multiplication in the sense I would wait for.

I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing  
or understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive  
sensory-motor experiences. Addition and multiplication are not  
literal phenomena, rather they are analytical descriptions and  
interpretations of phenomena which are either bodies in space,  
experiences through time, or combinations and continuations thereof.  
To get to addition, you need to have an experience of counting, of  
memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary coherence and  
multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and  
representation...so many things... I have repeated this several  
times, why do you act as if I have been silent on this point?


Sorry but you are confusing the numbers I assume, to explain just the  
working of a computer, with the human intuition of numbers, and the  
human senses, which needs the whole biological evolution to be  
explained. But you talk like if you start from human sense, which is  
non sensical for me. Sorry.










 which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material
 realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of
 other private representations, it has no public existence which is
 independent of sense,

Assuming what?


Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin  
air?



?






 nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to
 any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist
 independently of sense.

 Please don't hesitate to let me

Re: the curse of materialism

2013-01-21 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot 
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of 
computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you 
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a 
literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and 
multiplication in the sense I would wait for.

 Dear Bruno,

Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need 
to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? It seems 
to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation 
of arithmetics! Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a 
single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways 
and developing communication methods between themselves.
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such 
as numbers. Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not 
transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which 
can transform and remain the same!


--
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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:01:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:


 You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist 
 is if arithmetic is irreducible? 


 I did not say that. I was saying that you have to assume the numbers and 
 plus+times (or equivalent) to define pattern recognition, computers, etc. 


I don't see that pattern recognition requires numbers to be defined. To the 
contrary, numbers are clearly patterns recognized by different means.

If you take pattern recognition as primitive, you don't help me to 
 understand anything you say. 


I don't have any choice but to take pattern recognition as primitive - it 
is primitive.
 





 Okay, prove that.
  

 Then everything around me does not make sense.


 Why?


 Because without computer in reality, I have one mystery more: how is it 
 that I can send you a mail?


The presence of a computer or network of computers doesn't mean that 
everything else doesn't make sense. Computers have only been around for a 
few decades.
 




  

 If you   
 believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a   
 literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and   
 multiplication in the sense I would wait for. 


 I have done this many times already, but you aren't really hearing or 
 understanding. Arithmetic primitives depend on more primitive sensory-motor 
 experiences. Addition and multiplication are not literal phenomena, rather 
 they are analytical descriptions and interpretations of phenomena which are 
 either bodies in space, experiences through time, or combinations and 
 continuations thereof. To get to addition, you need to have an experience 
 of counting, of memory, of discernment and augmentation, of solitary 
 coherence and multiplicity, of succession and sequence, of presentation and 
 representation...so many things... I have repeated this several times, why 
 do you act as if I have been silent on this point?


 Sorry but you are confusing the numbers I assume, to explain just the 
 working of a computer, with the human intuition of numbers, and the human 
 senses, which needs the whole biological evolution to be explained. But you 
 talk like if you start from human sense, which is non sensical for me. 
 Sorry.


I don't start from human sense at all. I start from the irreducible. 
Perceptual participation = experience. The reason a computer works is 
because a there is an experience in which a body participates in a 
perception of not being able to occupy the same space as another body, or 
of a body being able to modify its own sensory-motor disposition based upon 
the capacity to perceive some sensory-motory disposition of another body. 
This is why we can't build machines out of gas or empty space or drawings 
on paper.

 









  which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material   
  realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of   
  other private representations, it has no public existence which is   
  independent of sense, 

 Assuming what? 


 Assuming that we have not detected 'numbers' appearing out of thin air? 



 ?





  nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to   
  any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist   
  independently of sense. 
  
  Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that. 

 In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the   
 foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or   
 semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have   
 already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this.   
 It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine   
 cannot support thinking. 


 It's not sad if I'm right. 


 That is subjective. I think it is sad even if you are right, as it makes 
 the zombies possible.


Zombies are only possible if you extend an expectation of sentience where 
it doesn't belong. Puppets and avatars are not only possible, but they are 
everywhere, and understanding how layers of sense are partitioned is 
essential to any theory of consciousness.




 To me it's sad that we are seriously considering that machines could 
 generate thinking based on nothing but superficial correspondences to 
 behavior, especially when we know specifically that behavior and 
 consciousness are not directly correlated. 


 You are deadly wrong on this. The fact that machine could possibly think 
 is, for me, more related in the fact that they are mute on the deep 
 question than by any kind of behavior they can have. 


To me the fact that they are mute on the deep questions is an obvious 
tautology. If you ask something which can't think a question which requires 
thinking, it is going to remain mute. It's really no more complicated than 
that. You are reading deep wisdom into the amputated noise of a Magic 
8-Ball pushed

Re: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:05:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot 
  derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of 
  computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you 
  believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a 
  literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and 
  multiplication in the sense I would wait for. 
   Dear Bruno, 

  Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need 
 to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? It seems 
 to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation 
 of arithmetics! Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a 
 single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways 
 and developing communication methods between themselves. 
  Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
 material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such 
 as numbers. Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not 
 transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which 
 can transform and remain the same! 


Right on. I can agree with all of that. I mean if we wanted to get 
technical I would split the physics of counting into the private motive 
experience quantitative reasoning from the sensory experiences of figures 
or forms upon which we project our representations, but yeah numbers need a 
substrate. I call that substrate physical, but not material as it 
experiential/intentional rather than substantial/extended.

Craig

-- 
 Onward! 

 Stephen 




-- 
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/-/6fS3FKpP2zkJ.
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have 
representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.

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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 

 Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material 
 things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


 That's something evolution explains.


Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient 
if there were such things as representations, but it offers no such thing 
as a physical ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have 
teleportation, time travel, and telepathy in the same way.

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/-/aa-VLnv60KkJ.
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material 
things to
have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.


Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient if there were 
such things as representations, but it offers no such thing as a physical ontology of 
it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have teleportation, time travel, and telepathy 
in the same way.


If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer science and learn how 
a computer can have representations of cities and faces.


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: the curse of materialism



On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 

 Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material 
 things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


 That's something evolution explains.
  

 Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient 
 if there were such things as representations, but it offers no such thing 
 as a physical ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have 
 teleportation, time travel, and telepathy in the same way.
  

 If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer 
 science and learn how a computer can have representations of cities and 
 faces.


I have taught computer classes professionally actually. I'm certified MCSE 
and CCEA and have been using computers on a daily basis since 1981. 
Computers have no representations. It is us who use pixels to represent 
images or transistors to represent bits of information, not a computer. A 
computer wouldn't know the difference between a city and a face if it 
scanned every image of a face and a city in existence.

I recommend you study semiotics and learn how symbols and subjects relate. 

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/-/49pVJoVghBIJ.
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: the curse of materialism

On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for
material
things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as
numbers.

That's something evolution explains.

Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient
if there
were such things as representations, but it offers no such thing as a
physical
ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have teleportation, time
travel, and telepathy in the same way.

If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer
science and
learn how a computer can have representations of cities and faces.

I have taught computer classes professionally actually. I'm certified MCSE and CCEA and
have been using computers on a daily basis since 1981. Computers have no
representations. It is us who use pixels to represent images or transistors to represent
bits of information,

...and images (in computers) represent objects.

not a computer. A computer wouldn't know the difference between a city and a face if it
scanned every image of a face and a city in existence.

Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the
streets of Los Angeles.

Brent

I recommend you study semiotics and learn how symbols and subjects relate.

When it comes to semiotics, I'm a pragmatist. The meaning of a symbol is how it effects
the perceiver. I think it's amusing that what is taken as serious academic philosophy in
France is done in the U.S. as marketing research.

Brent

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/-/49pVJoVghBIJ.

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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13

Re: the curse of materialism

2013-01-21 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/21/2013 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I mean if we wanted to get technical I would split the physics of 
counting into the private motive experience quantitative reasoning 
from the sensory experiences of figures or forms upon which we project 
our representations, but yeah numbers need a substrate. I call that 
substrate physical, but not material as it experiential/intentional 
rather than substantial/extended.


Hi Craig,

What is the difference between experiential/intentional and 
substantial/extended other than a vague and undefined reference to some 
imaginary 3p? What I experience is 'substantial to me', at least for a 
moment until what ever it was vanishes again as new data arrives. What 
is intensional to me, as in, X implies Y where X does not equal Y or X 
is not the same as Y, other than a difference in quantity; the same kind 
of difference that one end of a yardstick has from the other end, when 
we abstracted away the variances.
So the one associated with yardsticks is easily represented as a 
scalar value, but isn't every thing substantial quantifiable in some way 
too? We sometimes fall prey to misplaced categorization...


--
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: the curse of materialism

2013-01-21 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
material things to have representations of things, intensionality, 
such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.

Brent


Hi Brent,

Could you elaborate on this comment?

--
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: the curse of materialism


On 1/21/2013 5:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to 
have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.


That's something evolution explains.

Brent


Hi Brent,

Could you elaborate on this comment?


I thought it was obvious. A (material) living thing can be more successful reproducing if 
it can internally manipulate representations of things in the world, i.e. think and plan, 
such as counting them, adding and subtracting.  See the book by William S. Cooper which I 
have cited before.


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: the curse of materialism

2013-01-21 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net

  Lecture : Scientific heresy.  Nov 1, 2011 in Edinburgh.
  / By Matt Ridley /
My topic today is scientific heresy.
When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad?
How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience?

#
Just this month Daniel Shechtman won the 2011 Nobel Prize
 in chemistry for quasi crystals, having spent much of his career
 being vilified and exiled as a crank
“I was thrown out of my research group.
They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying.”

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

==.

-- 
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: the curse of materialism

2013-01-20 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
  That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the 
  mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind 
  of underlying conputation) 


 Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why 3D 
 geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic arithmetic takes 
 some work).

 Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum of 
 distance. 


 In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit 
 exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth.  You are 
 unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem for comp, or 
 even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure mathematics exists make any 
 sense to me.


I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear. My 
understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern recognition, 
which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material realism 
depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of other private 
representations, it has no public existence which is independent of sense, 
nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to any form 
of sense were they hypothetically able to exist independently of sense.

Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that.

Craig

 


 Bruno




 Mathematics is two distinctly different (opposite) things:

 1) A private experience of imagined sensory symbol-figures which accompany 
 a motive of quantitative reasoning.

 2) A collection of public objects interact in a logical way, without any 
 private representations, as a consequence of the physics of multiple rigid 
 bodies.

 The problem is that comp seduces us into a shell game whereby when we look 
 at math 'out there' (2), we smuggle in the meaning from in here (1), and 
 when we look at meaning in here (1) we misattribute it to the blind 
 enactment of a-signifying motions among neurophysical objects.

 The only difference between the colors and feelings of private experience 
 and the structures and functions which we study in science is that the 
 colors are experienced first hand and are therefore described with the full 
 complement of human sense (misleading and conflicting though it may be). We 
 assume that the world outside of our minds runs on math not because it 
 actually does, but because our awareness of it is a grossly reduced, 
 indirect logical construction. 
  

  
  Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of 
  the colored reality is a product of the mind. 


 Not a product exactly, more like an induct. Same with every measurement 
 ever made though. It's all an induction of our experience (plus the 
 experiences of all of the objects and substances, times and conditions 
 involved).
  

  
  The quantum and relativistic mathematics lacks a corresponding qualia 
  of the mind that make them intuitive and real. They are efective and 
  predictive, but we can not make it apparent and intuitive in our 
 reality. 
  

 Right. That's because QM assumes Math (1) is present in Math (2). It 
 isn't. You need sensory-motor participation, i.e. afferent perception and 
 efferent participation as a fundamental base before quantum to make any 
 kind of realism with it.

 Craig
  

  I agree! 

 -- 
 Onward! 

 Stephen 



 -- 
 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/-/3eq5Nzab1ikJ.
 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/-/uBjdNYA6tGsJ.
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: the curse of materialism

2013-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
 That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in  
the

 mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind
 of underlying conputation)

Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why  
3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic  
arithmetic takes some work).


Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum  
of distance.


In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit  
exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth.  You are  
unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem for  
comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure mathematics  
exists make any sense to me.


Bruno





Mathematics is two distinctly different (opposite) things:

1) A private experience of imagined sensory symbol-figures which  
accompany a motive of quantitative reasoning.


2) A collection of public objects interact in a logical way, without  
any private representations, as a consequence of the physics of  
multiple rigid bodies.


The problem is that comp seduces us into a shell game whereby when  
we look at math 'out there' (2), we smuggle in the meaning from in  
here (1), and when we look at meaning in here (1) we misattribute it  
to the blind enactment of a-signifying motions among neurophysical  
objects.


The only difference between the colors and feelings of private  
experience and the structures and functions which we study in  
science is that the colors are experienced first hand and are  
therefore described with the full complement of human sense  
(misleading and conflicting though it may be). We assume that the  
world outside of our minds runs on math not because it actually  
does, but because our awareness of it is a grossly reduced, indirect  
logical construction.



 Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of
 the colored reality is a product of the mind.

Not a product exactly, more like an induct. Same with every  
measurement ever made though. It's all an induction of our  
experience (plus the experiences of all of the objects and  
substances, times and conditions involved).



 The quantum and relativistic mathematics lacks a corresponding  
qualia
 of the mind that make them intuitive and real. They are efective  
and
 predictive, but we can not make it apparent and intuitive in our  
reality.



Right. That's because QM assumes Math (1) is present in Math (2). It  
isn't. You need sensory-motor participation, i.e. afferent  
perception and efferent participation as a fundamental base before  
quantum to make any kind of realism with it.


Craig

 I agree!

--
Onward!

Stephen



--
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/-/3eq5Nzab1ikJ 
.

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: the curse of materialism

2013-01-17 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
  That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the 
  mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind 
  of underlying conputation) 


Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why 3D 
geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic arithmetic takes 
some work).

Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum of 
distance. 

Mathematics is two distinctly different (opposite) things:

1) A private experience of imagined sensory symbol-figures which accompany 
a motive of quantitative reasoning.

2) A collection of public objects interact in a logical way, without any 
private representations, as a consequence of the physics of multiple rigid 
bodies.

The problem is that comp seduces us into a shell game whereby when we look 
at math 'out there' (2), we smuggle in the meaning from in here (1), and 
when we look at meaning in here (1) we misattribute it to the blind 
enactment of a-signifying motions among neurophysical objects.

The only difference between the colors and feelings of private experience 
and the structures and functions which we study in science is that the 
colors are experienced first hand and are therefore described with the full 
complement of human sense (misleading and conflicting though it may be). We 
assume that the world outside of our minds runs on math not because it 
actually does, but because our awareness of it is a grossly reduced, 
indirect logical construction. 
 

  
  Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of 
  the colored reality is a product of the mind. 


Not a product exactly, more like an induct. Same with every measurement 
ever made though. It's all an induction of our experience (plus the 
experiences of all of the objects and substances, times and conditions 
involved).
 

  
  The quantum and relativistic mathematics lacks a corresponding qualia 
  of the mind that make them intuitive and real. They are efective and 
  predictive, but we can not make it apparent and intuitive in our 
 reality. 
  

 Right. That's because QM assumes Math (1) is present in Math (2). It 
isn't. You need sensory-motor participation, i.e. afferent perception and 
efferent participation as a fundamental base before quantum to make any 
kind of realism with it.

Craig
 

  I agree! 

 -- 
 Onward! 

 Stephen 




-- 
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/-/3eq5Nzab1ikJ.
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.

the curse of materialism

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 

You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
This might be called the curse of materialism.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/16/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: socra...@bezeqint.net  
Receiver: Everything List  
Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 


Physics and Metaphysics. 

John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
=== . 

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
Why? 
Because, he wrote: 
? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
metaphysical decision ?. 
/ preface/ 
? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
/ page 40/ 
? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
it is that the world is full of surprises? 
/ page 87 / 
? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take 
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory 
include: . . . .? 
/ page 88 / 
?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? 
/ page92 / 
? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and 
instructive phenomenon, . .? 
/ page 92 / 
==. 
In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing 
what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: 
? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only 
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. 
/ preface / 
And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge 
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics. 
=== . 
Somebody wrote: 
The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?. 
I agree. 
===. 
Best wishes. 
Israel Sadovnik Socratus. 
===. 

--  
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: the curse of materialism

2013-01-16 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net

The Newtonian world cannot exist without Quantum world
and vice versa.
We cannot separate the Quantum theory from Classical theory,
the  Quantum world from  Newtonian  material world.
The quantum world as real as the physical matter world and
we need understand and celebrate their unity.
Where is problem ?
The problem is, that we don’t  know how to unite them together.
Why ?
Because we don’t know what Quantum world is and it is almost
impossible for us to believe that It can be Aristotle’s  metaphysical
world.
Where is the key to solving this problem ?
The key has name. Its name is ‘ Quantum of Light’.
==.
P.S.
 ‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
 no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
 but he is mistaken. ‘
 / Einstein /
===..


On Jan 16, 11:01 am, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

 You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
 This might be called the curse of materialism.

 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/16/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net
 Receiver: Everything List
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

 Physics and Metaphysics.

 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum 
 theory?.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
 === .

 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
 Why?Because, he wrote:

 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
 metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface/
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
 / page 40/
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
 it is that the world is full of surprises?
 / page 87 /
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
 include: . . . .?
 / page 88 /
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
 / page92 /
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
 instructive phenomenon, . .?
 / page 92 /
 ==.
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface /
 And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
 on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
 === .Somebody wrote:

 The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?.
 I agree.
 ===.
 Best wishes.
 Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
 ===.

 --
 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 
 athttp://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.

Fwd: the curse of materialism

Roger,
I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am

But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.

Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.

That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
Something you have been preaching for some time.
With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.

Instant action derives directly from your claim that
the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
are out side of spacetime.

I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
because the quantum mind is a
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
act as though they were out of spacetime.
Richard

-- Forwarded message --
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
Subject: the curse of materialism
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com


Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


Physics and Metaphysics.

John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
Why?
Because, he wrote:
? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ?.
/ preface/
? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
/ page 40/
? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises?
/ page 87 /
? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .?
/ page 88 /
?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
/ page92 /
? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .?
/ page 92 /
==.
In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
/ preface /
And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
=== .
Somebody wrote:
The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?.
I agree.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.

--
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: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Hi Richard Ruquist  

That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is 
not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in  
some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course 
be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.  
It is not even a brain in a vat.



[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, 07:47:52 
Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism 


Roger, 
I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am 

But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. 

Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. 
Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. 

That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. 
Something you have been preaching for some time. 
With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. 

Instant action derives directly from your claim that 
the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields 
are out side of spacetime. 

I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime 
because the quantum mind is a 
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. 
which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet 
act as though they were out of spacetime. 
Richard 

-- Forwarded message -- 
From: Roger Clough  
Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM 
Subject: the curse of materialism 
To: everything-list  


Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 

You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
This might be called the curse of materialism. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/16/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
Receiver: Everything List 
Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 


Physics and Metaphysics. 

John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
=== . 

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
Why? 
Because, he wrote: 
? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
metaphysical decision ?. 
/ preface/ 
? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
/ page 40/ 
? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
it is that the world is full of surprises? 
/ page 87 / 
? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take 
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory 
include: . . . .? 
/ page 88 / 
?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? 
/ page92 / 
? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and 
instructive phenomenon, . .? 
/ page 92 / 
==. 
In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing 
what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: 
? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only 
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. 
/ preface / 
And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge 
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics. 
=== . 
Somebody wrote: 
The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?. 
I agree. 
===. 
Best wishes. 
Israel Sadovnik Socratus. 
===. 

-- 
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.

-- 
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: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
outside spacetime.
Richard

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is
 not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in
 some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
 considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course
 be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.
 It is not even a brain in a vat.



 [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, 07:47:52
 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger,
 I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am

 But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.

 Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
 Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.

 That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
 Something you have been preaching for some time.
 With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.

 Instant action derives directly from your claim that
 the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
 are out side of spacetime.

 I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
 because the quantum mind is a
  Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
 which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
 act as though they were out of spacetime.
 Richard

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Roger Clough
 Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
 Subject: the curse of materialism
 To: everything-list


 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

 You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
 This might be called the curse of materialism.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/16/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net
 Receiver: Everything List
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


 Physics and Metaphysics.

 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
 === .

 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
 Why?
 Because, he wrote:
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
 metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface/
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
 / page 40/
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
 it is that the world is full of surprises?
 / page 87 /
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
 include: . . . .?
 / page 88 /
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
 / page92 /
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
 instructive phenomenon, . .?
 / page 92 /
 ==.
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface /
 And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
 on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
 === .
 Somebody wrote:
 The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?.
 I agree.
 ===.
 Best wishes.
 Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
 ===.

 --
 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

Re: Re: the curse of materialism

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net  

Feymann has passed on. He was the one who said that 
if you think you understand QM, you don't.  Others have said similar. 

Here's what Wikipedia has to say: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulations_of_quantum_mechanics 

The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are those mathematical 
formalisms that  
permit a rigorous description of quantum mechanics. Such are distinguished from 
mathematical formalisms  
for theories developed prior to the early 1900s by the use of abstract 
mathematical structures, such as  
infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and operators on these spaces. Many of 
these structures are drawn from  
functional analysis, a research area within pure mathematics that was 
influenced in part by the needs of quantum mechanics.  
In brief, values of physical observables such as energy and momentum were no 
longer considered as values of  
functions on phase space, but as eigenvalues; more precisely: as spectral 
values (point spectrum plus absolute  
continuous plus singular continuous spectrum) of linear operators in Hilbert 
space.[1] 

I am not able to understand that.  




[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/16/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: socra...@bezeqint.net  
Receiver: Everything List  
Time: 2013-01-16, 07:38:37 
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism 


The Newtonian world cannot exist without Quantum world 
and vice versa. 
We cannot separate the Quantum theory from Classical theory, 
the Quantum world from Newtonian material world. 
The quantum world as real as the physical matter world and 
we need understand and celebrate their unity. 
Where is problem ? 
The problem is, that we don? know how to unite them together. 
Why ? 
Because we don? know what Quantum world is and it is almost 
impossible for us to believe that It can be Aristotle? metaphysical 
world. 
Where is the key to solving this problem ? 
The key has name. Its name is ? Quantum of Light?. 
==. 
P.S. 
 ? All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me 
 no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' 
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, 
 but he is mistaken. ? 
 / Einstein / 
===.. 


On Jan 16, 11:01?m, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 
 
 You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
 This might be called the curse of materialism. 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
 1/16/2013 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
 Receiver: Everything List 
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
 
 Physics and Metaphysics. 
 
 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum 
 theory?.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
 === . 
 
 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
 Why?Because, he wrote: 
 
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
 metaphysical decision ?. 
 / preface/ 
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
 / page 40/ 
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
 it is that the world is full of surprises? 
 / page 87 / 
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take 
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory 
 include: . . . .? 
 / page 88 / 
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? 
 / page92 / 
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and 
 instructive phenomenon, . .? 
 / page 92 / 
 ==. 
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing 
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: 
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only 
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. 
 / preface / 
 And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge 
 on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics. 
 === .Somebody wrote: 
 
 The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?. 
 I agree. 
 ===. 
 Best wishes. 
 Israel Sadovnik Socratus. 
 ===. 
 
 -- 
 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 
 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything

Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Hi Richard Ruquist  

OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. 

[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, 08:59:49 
Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 


Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can 
form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one 
substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively 
outside spacetime. 
Richard 

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
 Hi Richard Ruquist 
 
 That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is 
 not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in 
 some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be 
 considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course 
 be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. 
 It is not even a brain in a vat. 
 
 
 
 [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, 07:47:52 
 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
 
 
 Roger, 
 I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am 
 
 But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. 
 
 Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. 
 Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. 
 
 That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. 
 Something you have been preaching for some time. 
 With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. 
 
 Instant action derives directly from your claim that 
 the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields 
 are out side of spacetime. 
 
 I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime 
 because the quantum mind is a 
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. 
 which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet 
 act as though they were out of spacetime. 
 Richard 
 
 -- Forwarded message -- 
 From: Roger Clough 
 Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM 
 Subject: the curse of materialism 
 To: everything-list 
 
 
 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 
 
 You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
 This might be called the curse of materialism. 
 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
 1/16/2013 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
 Receiver: Everything List 
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
 
 
 Physics and Metaphysics. 
 
 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
 === . 
 
 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
 Why? 
 Because, he wrote: 
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
 metaphysical decision ?. 
 / preface/ 
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
 / page 40/ 
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
 it is that the world is full of surprises? 
 / page 87 / 
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take 
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory 
 include: . . . .? 
 / page 88 / 
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? 
 / page92 / 
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and 
 instructive phenomenon, . .? 
 / page 92 / 
 ==. 
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing 
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: 
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only 
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. 
 / preface / 
 And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge 
 on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics. 
 === . 
 Somebody wrote: 
 The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?. 
 I agree. 
 ===. 
 Best wishes. 
 Israel Sadovnik Socratus. 
 ===. 
 
 -- 
 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

Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

2013-01-16 Thread Craig Weinberg

I don't really see much of a difference whether we talk about BECs, 
strings, charged geometries, vacuum flux, aether, numbers, or any other 
spatially structured medium. Who cares? The question is how does that begin 
to know about something and to care about it?

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:08:35 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

 Hi Richard Ruquist   

 OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. 

 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 
 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, 08:59:49 
 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 


 Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can 
 form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one 
 substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively 
 outside spacetime. 
 Richard 

 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
  Hi Richard Ruquist 
  
  That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is 
  not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in 
  some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be 
  considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course 
  be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. 
  It is not even a brain in a vat. 
  
  
  
  [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 
  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, 07:47:52 
  Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
  
  
  Roger, 
  I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am 
  
  But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. 
  
  Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. 
  Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential 
 property. 
  
  That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. 
  Something you have been preaching for some time. 
  With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. 
  
  Instant action derives directly from your claim that 
  the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields 
  are out side of spacetime. 
  
  I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime 
  because the quantum mind is a 
  Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. 
  which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet 
  act as though they were out of spacetime. 
  Richard 
  
  -- Forwarded message -- 
  From: Roger Clough 
  Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM 
  Subject: the curse of materialism 
  To: everything-list 
  
  
  Hi socr...@bezeqint.net javascript: 
  
  You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
  Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
  This might be called the curse of materialism. 
  
  
  [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 
  1/16/2013 
  Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
  - Receiving the following content - 
  From: socr...@bezeqint.net javascript: 
  Receiver: Everything List 
  Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
  Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
  
  
  Physics and Metaphysics. 
  
  John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
  === . 
  
  John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
  the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
  nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
  Why? 
  Because, he wrote: 
  ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
  We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
  issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
  eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
  metaphysical decision ?. 
  / preface/ 
  ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
  and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
  / page 40/ 
  ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
  it is that the world is full of surprises? 
  / page 87 / 
  ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take 
  very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory 
  include: . . . .? 
  / page 88 / 
  ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? 
  / page92 / 
  ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and 
  instructive phenomenon, . .? 
  / page 92 / 
  ==. 
  In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing 
  what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: 
  ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only 
  physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. 
  / preface / 
  And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge 
  on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics. 
  === . 
  Somebody wrote: 
  The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?. 
  I agree. 
  ===. 
  Best wishes. 
  Israel Sadovnik

Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.

 [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, 08:59:49
 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
 form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
 substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
 outside spacetime.
 Richard

 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is
 not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in
 some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
 considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course
 be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.
 It is not even a brain in a vat.



 [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, 07:47:52
 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger,
 I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am

 But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.

 Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
 Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.

 That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
 Something you have been preaching for some time.
 With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.

 Instant action derives directly from your claim that
 the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
 are out side of spacetime.

 I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
 because the quantum mind is a
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
 which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
 act as though they were out of spacetime.
 Richard

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Roger Clough
 Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
 Subject: the curse of materialism
 To: everything-list


 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

 You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
 This might be called the curse of materialism.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/16/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net
 Receiver: Everything List
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


 Physics and Metaphysics.

 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
 === .

 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
 Why?
 Because, he wrote:
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
 metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface/
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
 / page 40/
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
 it is that the world is full of surprises?
 / page 87 /
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
 include: . . . .?
 / page 88 /
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
 / page92 /
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
 instructive phenomenon, . .?
 / page 92 /
 ==.
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface /
 And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
 on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
 === .
 Somebody wrote:
 The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?.
 I agree.
 ===.
 Best wishes.
 Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
 ===.

 --
 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

Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Craig,

The monads themselves are sensitive, being able to map or reflect or
perceive the rest of the universe instantly. Whether they care or not
is beyond the scope of science. Not seeing any difference is your
problem. Richard

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 I don't really see much of a difference whether we talk about BECs, strings,
 charged geometries, vacuum flux, aether, numbers, or any other spatially
 structured medium. Who cares? The question is how does that begin to know
 about something and to care about it?


 On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:08:35 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

 Hi Richard Ruquist

 OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.

 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 08:59:49
 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
 form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
 substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
 outside spacetime.
 Richard

 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
  Hi Richard Ruquist
 
  That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is
  not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in
  some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
  considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course
  be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.
  It is not even a brain in a vat.
 
 
 
  [Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 07:47:52
  Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism
 
 
  Roger,
  I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am
 
  But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.
 
  Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
  Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential
  property.
 
  That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
  Something you have been preaching for some time.
  With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.
 
  Instant action derives directly from your claim that
  the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
  are out side of spacetime.
 
  I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
  because the quantum mind is a
  Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
  which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
  act as though they were out of spacetime.
  Richard
 
  -- Forwarded message --
  From: Roger Clough
  Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
  Subject: the curse of materialism
  To: everything-list
 
 
  Hi socr...@bezeqint.net
 
  You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
  Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
  This might be called the curse of materialism.
 
 
  [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
  1/16/2013
  Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
  - Receiving the following content -
  From: socr...@bezeqint.net
  Receiver: Everything List
  Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
  Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
 
 
  Physics and Metaphysics.
 
  John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
  === .
 
  John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
  the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
  nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
  Why?
  Because, he wrote:
  ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
  We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
  issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
  eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
  metaphysical decision ?.
  / preface/
  ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
  and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
  / page 40/
  ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
  it is that the world is full of surprises?
  / page 87 /
  ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
  very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
  include: . . . .?
  / page 88 /
  ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
  / page92 /
  ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
  instructive phenomenon, . .?
  / page 92 /
  ==.
  In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
  what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
  ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
  physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
  / preface /
  And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
  on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
  === .
  Somebody wrote

Re: Re: the curse of materialism

2013-01-16 Thread Alberto G. Corona

This is the best introduction to quantum mechanics:

https://www.google.es/search?q=susskind+quantum+mechanicsaq=foq=susskind+quantum+mechanicsaqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.11316sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8

disclaimer: I have not seen it. but I saw some other lectures of this
series the theoretical minimum from Leonard Susskind and they are
awersome.

The laws of physics are experimental, and experimental is a form of ad hoc.
The Schrodinger equation was made ad hoc to match the experimental results.
In the same way, relativity: so Michelson did not found any anisotropy in
the speed of light? let's make c constant, an see what happens in the
equations.

So they lack interpretation. the interpretation is post hoc. But if we have
not a innate intuition of concepts that can help, there is no possible
understanding of them. The newtonian laws can be understood because our
innate notion of phisics is aristotelian, and includes the fundamental
elements: euclidean 3D geometry, bodies, forces etc. But quantum mechanics
and relativity can only be -partially- understood intuitively by making
partial analogies with innate objects of our intuition.

2013/1/16 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

Feymann has passed on. He was the one who said that
if you think you understand QM, you don't. Others have said similar.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulations_of_quantum_mechanics

The mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are those mathematical
formalisms that
permit a rigorous description of quantum mechanics. Such are distinguished
from mathematical formalisms
for theories developed prior to the early 1900s by the use of abstract
mathematical structures, such as
infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and operators on these spaces. Many of
these structures are drawn from
functional analysis, a research area within pure mathematics that was
influenced in part by the needs of quantum mechanics.
In brief, values of physical observables such as energy and momentum were
no longer considered as values of
functions on phase space, but as eigenvalues; more precisely: as spectral
values (point spectrum plus absolute
continuous plus singular continuous spectrum) of linear operators in
Hilbert space.[1]

I am not able to understand that.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-16, 07:38:37
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism

The Newtonian world cannot exist without Quantum world
and vice versa.
We cannot separate the Quantum theory from Classical theory,
the Quantum world from Newtonian material world.
The quantum world as real as the physical matter world and
we need understand and celebrate their unity.
Where is problem ?
The problem is, that we don? know how to unite them together.
Why ?
Because we don? know what Quantum world is and it is almost
impossible for us to believe that It can be Aristotle? metaphysical
world.
Where is the key to solving this problem ?
The key has name. Its name is ? Quantum of Light?.
==.
P.S.
? All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ?
/ Einstein /
===..

On Jan 16, 11:01?m, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.

Physics and Metaphysics.

John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
Why?Because, he wrote:

? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ?.
/ preface/
? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
/ page 40/
? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises?
/ page 87 /
? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Hi Richard Ruquist  

Yes, of course.  The monads are mental representations of  
physical bodies in the world.  You will presumably have for 
your physical object some container in L He with a BEC 
at the bottom.  Physical objects such as rocks produce 
bare naked  monads. Is that what you want ? 


[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, 09:21:38 
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 


I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads 

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
 Hi Richard Ruquist 
 
 OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. 
 
 [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, 08:59:49 
 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
 
 
 Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can 
 form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one 
 substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively 
 outside spacetime. 
 Richard 
 
 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Richard Ruquist 
 
 That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is 
 not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in 
 some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be 
 considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course 
 be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. 
 It is not even a brain in a vat. 
 
 
 
 [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, 07:47:52 
 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
 
 
 Roger, 
 I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am 
 
 But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. 
 
 Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. 
 Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. 
 
 That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. 
 Something you have been preaching for some time. 
 With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. 
 
 Instant action derives directly from your claim that 
 the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields 
 are out side of spacetime. 
 
 I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime 
 because the quantum mind is a 
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. 
 which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet 
 act as though they were out of spacetime. 
 Richard 
 
 -- Forwarded message -- 
 From: Roger Clough 
 Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM 
 Subject: the curse of materialism 
 To: everything-list 
 
 
 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 
 
 You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
 This might be called the curse of materialism. 
 
 
 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
 1/16/2013 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
 Receiver: Everything List 
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
 
 
 Physics and Metaphysics. 
 
 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
 === . 
 
 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
 Why? 
 Because, he wrote: 
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
 metaphysical decision ?. 
 / preface/ 
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
 / page 40/ 
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
 it is that the world is full of surprises? 
 / page 87 / 
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take 
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory 
 include: . . . .? 
 / page 88 / 
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? 
 / page92 / 
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and 
 instructive phenomenon, . .? 
 / page 92 / 
 ==. 
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing 
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: 
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only 
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. 
 / preface / 
 And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Roger,
Your presumptions are incorrect.
Also your monad definition.
I am too old for bare naked.
Stop being silly.
Richard

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 Yes, of course.  The monads are mental representations of
 physical bodies in the world.  You will presumably have for
 your physical object some container in L He with a BEC
 at the bottom.  Physical objects such as rocks produce
 bare naked  monads. Is that what you want ?


 [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, 09:21:38
 Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads

 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.

 [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, 08:59:49
 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
 form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
 substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
 outside spacetime.
 Richard

 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is
 not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in
 some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
 considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course
 be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.
 It is not even a brain in a vat.



 [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, 07:47:52
 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger,
 I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am

 But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.

 Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
 Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.

 That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
 Something you have been preaching for some time.
 With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.

 Instant action derives directly from your claim that
 the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
 are out side of spacetime.

 I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
 because the quantum mind is a
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
 which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
 act as though they were out of spacetime.
 Richard

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Roger Clough
 Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
 Subject: the curse of materialism
 To: everything-list


 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

 You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
 This might be called the curse of materialism.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/16/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net
 Receiver: Everything List
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


 Physics and Metaphysics.

 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
 === .

 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
 Why?
 Because, he wrote:
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
 metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface/
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
 / page 40/
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
 it is that the world is full of surprises?
 / page 87 /
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
 include: . . . .?
 / page 88 /
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
 / page92 /
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
 instructive phenomenon, . .?
 / page 92 /
 ==.
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Hi Richard Ruquist 

OK I'm fired. I leave the issue to you.


[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, 09:43:48
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


Roger,
Your presumptions are incorrect.
Also your monad definition.
I am too old for bare naked.
Stop being silly.
Richard

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 Yes, of course. The monads are mental representations of
 physical bodies in the world. You will presumably have for
 your physical object some container in L He with a BEC
 at the bottom. Physical objects such as rocks produce
 bare naked  monads. Is that what you want ?


 [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, 09:21:38
 Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads

 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.

 [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, 08:59:49
 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can
 form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one
 substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively
 outside spacetime.
 Richard

 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Richard Ruquist

 That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is
 not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in
 some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be
 considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course
 be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.
 It is not even a brain in a vat.



 [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, 07:47:52
 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism


 Roger,
 I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am

 But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.

 Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.
 Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.

 That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.
 Something you have been preaching for some time.
 With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.

 Instant action derives directly from your claim that
 the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields
 are out side of spacetime.

 I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime
 because the quantum mind is a
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.
 which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet
 act as though they were out of spacetime.
 Richard

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Roger Clough
 Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM
 Subject: the curse of materialism
 To: everything-list


 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

 You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
 This might be called the curse of materialism.


 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/16/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net
 Receiver: Everything List
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


 Physics and Metaphysics.

 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
 === .

 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
 Why?
 Because, he wrote:
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
 metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface/
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
 / page 40/
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
 it is that the world is full of surprises?
 / page 87 /
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
 include: . . . .?
 / page 88 /
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising

Re: the curse of materialism

2013-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 Jan 2013, at 11:01, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.


Newton's physics is also non physical. In fact it is even  
contradictory, as Newton was already well aware.


The curse of (weak) materialism(*) is that such a doctrine fits so  
nicely with billions years of mammal/living-creature, that despite  
taking some distance by those who founded science (including  
theology), we come back to such belief all the time, but in the global  
picture it can be wrong, and is provably wrong or non sensical once we  
assume computationalism in the cognitive science.


The curse of materialism is that it is a pseudo-religion. The believer  
in that religion does not want to realize its religious, assumed and  
unprovable feature.


The curse, in general, is when people think that they know the truth  
so much that they can dismiss other opinions, or other theories.


Bruno

(*) (weak) materialism is the doctrine asserting that primitive matter  
exist, or that matter has an ontological existence (making it  
primitive consequently).






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


Physics and Metaphysics.

John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
Why?
Because, he wrote:
? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ?.
/ preface/
? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
/ page 40/
? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises?
/ page 87 /
? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .?
/ page 88 /
?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
/ page92 /
? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .?
/ page 92 /
==.
In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
/ preface /
And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
=== .
Somebody wrote:
The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?.
I agree.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.

--  
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: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

2013-01-16 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:25:51 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 Craig, 

 The monads themselves are sensitive,


How? Why?
 

 being able to map or reflect or 
 perceive the rest of the universe instantly. 


That means that this capacity of reflection and perception is more 
primitive than the monads themselves.
 

 Whether they care or not 
 is beyond the scope of science. 


That's a cop out. The truth is the only scope of science.
 

 Not seeing any difference is your 
 problem. Richard 


Ok, but why should I want to fix this problem? Why does it matter which 
shapes are fundamental? It's like arguing whether percussion, wind, or 
stringed instruments are responsible for music.

Craig
 


 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 
  I don't really see much of a difference whether we talk about BECs, 
 strings, 
  charged geometries, vacuum flux, aether, numbers, or any other spatially 
  structured medium. Who cares? The question is how does that begin to 
 know 
  about something and to care about it? 
  
  
  On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:08:35 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
  
  Hi Richard Ruquist 
  
  OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. 
  
  [Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 08:59:49 
  Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
  
  
  Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can 
  form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one 
  substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively 
  outside spacetime. 
  Richard 
  
  On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
   Hi Richard Ruquist 
   
   That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is 
   not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in 
   some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be 
   considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course 
   be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. 
   It is not even a brain in a vat. 
   
   
   
   [Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 07:47:52 
   Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism 
   
   
   Roger, 
   I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am 
   
   But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. 
   
   Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. 
   Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential 
   property. 
   
   That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. 
   Something you have been preaching for some time. 
   With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. 
   
   Instant action derives directly from your claim that 
   the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields 
   are out side of spacetime. 
   
   I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime 
   because the quantum mind is a 
   Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. 
   which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet 
   act as though they were out of spacetime. 
   Richard 
   
   -- Forwarded message -- 
   From: Roger Clough 
   Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM 
   Subject: the curse of materialism 
   To: everything-list 
   
   
   Hi socr...@bezeqint.net 
   
   You want to know why nobody understands QM ? 
   Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. 
   This might be called the curse of materialism. 
   
   
   [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
   1/16/2013 
   Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
   - Receiving the following content - 
   From: socr...@bezeqint.net 
   Receiver: Everything List 
   Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 
   Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 
   
   
   Physics and Metaphysics. 
   
   John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. 
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne 
   === . 
   
   John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? 
   the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that 
   nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? 
   Why? 
   Because, he wrote: 
   ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. 
   We shall see in what follows that important interpretative 
   issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their 
   eventual settlement not only physical insight but also 
   metaphysical decision ?. 
   / preface/ 
   ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, 
   and these are the subject of continuing dispute? 
   / page 40/ 
   ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, 
   it is that the world is full

Re: Re: the curse of materialism

Hi Bruno Marchal 

OK.


[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, 10:35:43
Subject: Re: the curse of materialism


On 16 Jan 2013, at 11:01, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

 You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
 This might be called the curse of materialism.

Newton's physics is also non physical. In fact it is even 
contradictory, as Newton was already well aware.

The curse of (weak) materialism(*) is that such a doctrine fits so 
nicely with billions years of mammal/living-creature, that despite 
taking some distance by those who founded science (including 
theology), we come back to such belief all the time, but in the global 
picture it can be wrong, and is provably wrong or non sensical once we 
assume computationalism in the cognitive science.

The curse of materialism is that it is a pseudo-religion. The believer 
in that religion does not want to realize its religious, assumed and 
unprovable feature.

The curse, in general, is when people think that they know the truth 
so much that they can dismiss other opinions, or other theories.

Bruno

(*) (weak) materialism is the doctrine asserting that primitive matter 
exist, or that matter has an ontological existence (making it 
primitive consequently).




 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
 1/16/2013
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: socra...@bezeqint.net
 Receiver: Everything List
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


 Physics and Metaphysics.

 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
 === .

 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
 Why?
 Because, he wrote:
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
 metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface/
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
 / page 40/
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
 it is that the world is full of surprises?
 / page 87 /
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
 include: . . . .?
 / page 88 /
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
 / page92 /
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
 instructive phenomenon, . .?
 / page 92 /
 ==.
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
 physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
 / preface /
 And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
 on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
 === .
 Somebody wrote:
 The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?.
 I agree.
 ===.
 Best wishes.
 Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
 ===.

 -- 
 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: the curse of materialism

2013-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:38, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


The Newtonian world cannot exist without Quantum world
and vice versa.
We cannot separate the Quantum theory from Classical theory,
the  Quantum world from  Newtonian  material world.


The quantum can explain some notion of quasi-classicality, but  
strictly speaking QM and Newtonian physics implies 0=1.




The quantum world as real as the physical matter world and
we need understand and celebrate their unity.
Where is problem ?
The problem is, that we don’t  know how to unite them together.
Why ?
Because we don’t know what Quantum world is


With comp we have an explanation, and even a testable one. The price:  
no worlds per se, only cohering number dreams.





and it is almost
impossible for us to believe that It can be Aristotle’s  metaphysical
world.
Where is the key to solving this problem ?
The key has name. Its name is ‘ Quantum of Light’.
==.
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /


OK. But Einstein is the one who understood De Broglie when he extended  
QM of light to all particles. There is nothing special with light,  
here, I think, in Einstein's mind.


Bruno




===..


On Jan 16, 11:01 am, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

You want to know why nobody understands QM ?
Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.
This might be called the curse of materialism.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/16/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

Physics and Metaphysics.

John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum 
theory?.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?
the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?
Why?Because, he wrote:

? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ?.
/ preface/
? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute?
/ page 40/
? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises?
/ page 87 /
? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .?
/ page 88 /
?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?
/ page92 /
? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .?
/ page 92 /
==.
In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
/ preface /
And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
=== .Somebody wrote:

The science will purify the religion of the ?ross?.
I agree.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.

--
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 athttp://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: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism

Hi Craig Weinberg  

I agree with you. I have no idea what Richard has in mind. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/16/2013  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-16, 09:16:17 
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism 


I don't really see much of a difference whether we talk about BECs, strings, 
charged geometries, vacuum flux, aether, numbers, or any other spatially 
structured medium. Who cares? The question is how does that begin to know about 
something and to care about it? 

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:08:35 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Richard Ruquist

OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it.  

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 08:59:49  
Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism  


Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can  
form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one  
substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively  
outside spacetime.  
Richard  

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:  
 Hi Richard Ruquist  
  
 That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is  
 not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in  
 some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be  
 considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course  
 be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human.  
 It is not even a brain in a vat.  
  
  
  
 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@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, 07:47:52  
 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism  
  
  
 Roger,  
 I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am  
  
 But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague.  
  
 Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete.  
 Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property.  
  
 That property is that the quantum mind has instant action.  
 Something you have been preaching for some time.  
 With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood.  
  
 Instant action derives directly from your claim that  
 the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields  
 are out side of spacetime.  
  
 I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime  
 because the quantum mind is a  
 Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.  
 which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet  
 act as though they were out of spacetime.  
 Richard  
  
 -- Forwarded message --  
 From: Roger Clough  
 Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM  
 Subject: the curse of materialism  
 To: everything-list  
  
  
 Hi socr...@bezeqint.net  
  
 You want to know why nobody understands QM ?  
 Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical.  
 This might be called the curse of materialism.  
  
  
 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]  
 1/16/2013  
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen  
 - Receiving the following content -  
 From: socr...@bezeqint.net  
 Receiver: Everything List  
 Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20  
 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.  
  
  
 Physics and Metaphysics.  
  
 John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?.  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne  
 === .  
  
 John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory?  
 the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that  
 nobody understands quantum mechanics. ?  
 Why?  
 Because, he wrote:  
 ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.  
 We shall see in what follows that important interpretative  
 issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their  
 eventual settlement not only physical insight but also  
 metaphysical decision ?.  
 / preface/  
 ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,  
 and these are the subject of continuing dispute?  
 / page 40/  
 ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,  
 it is that the world is full of surprises?  
 / page 87 /  
 ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take  
 very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory  
 include: . . . .?  
 / page 88 /  
 ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .?  
 / page92 /  
 ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and  
 instructive phenomenon, . .?  
 / page 92 /  
 ==.  
 In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing  
 what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:  
 ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only  
 physical

Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism