Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-02-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:55, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason,
and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs,
being objective (3p), cannot be free of error.


OK.
Only the consciousness root of our subjectivity is undoubtable and  
cannot been made wrong.
The objective is what is doubtable, and indeed science progresses by  
refuting the objective theories.




Only faith (1p),
being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error.


OK. But not all the subjective. On some point the subjective can be  
wrong too.





Obviously I cannot prove that.


Comp can prove that for all ideally correct machines, there are true  
but non expressible fact. And also that there are true, expressible,  
but non justifiable facts. Machine's subjectivity is very rich and  
variate.


Bruno






- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?

Hi Roger,

On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.


But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in  
theology. To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it  
makes sense locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if  
everyone can access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible  
is a venerable human text, but like all prose, it does not need  
literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big- 
enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire).


Bruno





- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?


On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal and all--

Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.


Those worlds are not necessarily separated.

Bruno






- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?


On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even  
if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic  
(stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer  
enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of  
such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME  
does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.


So: happy illusions!


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that  
this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The  
real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite  
evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge  
intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no  
sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate  
intelligence.


Bruno





John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist  
yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com

 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I

  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the  
capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all  
possible

  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an  
experience,

  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for  
time or

 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

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

 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl

Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-30 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason,
and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs,
being objective (3p), cannot be free of error. Only faith (1p),
being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error.
Obviously I cannot prove that. 


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?


Hi Roger,


On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.


But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology. To ease 
our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense locally, but it 
leads to more problems, especially if everyone can access it: no need of 
authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable human text, but like all 
prose, it does not need literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight 
between big-enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire).


Bruno






- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal and all--

Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.


Those worlds are not necessarily separated.


Bruno








- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard: 
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me? 
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. 
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like 
we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more 
accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent 
wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. 
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed 
exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. 


So: happy illusions! 


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might 
help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity 
is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often 
when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their 
own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't 
evaluate intelligence.


Bruno








John Mikes


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-28 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi Roger,

On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.


But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology.  
To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense  
locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if everyone can  
access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable  
human text, but like all prose, it does not need literal  
interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big-enders and  
small-enders (cf Voltaire).


Bruno





- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?


On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal and all--

Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.


Those worlds are not necessarily separated.

Bruno






- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?


On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even  
if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic  
(stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer  
enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of  
such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME  
does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.


So: happy illusions!


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that  
this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real  
stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences.  
This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence  
and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can  
evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence.


Bruno





John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist  
yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com

 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I

  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the  
capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all  
possible

  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an  
experience,

  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for  
time or

 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

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

 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email 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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr

Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-25 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal and all--

Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.


Those worlds are not necessarily separated.


Bruno








- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard: 
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me? 
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. 
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like 
we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more 
accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent 
wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. 
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed 
exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. 


So: happy illusions! 


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might 
help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity 
is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often 
when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their 
own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't 
evaluate intelligence.


Bruno








John Mikes


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-25 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 24 Jan 2013, at 22:41, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno:

WHAT 'evidences'???



I don't see what you are talking about. The word evidences does not  
appear in the quote.






we have no way to judge them.


We can bet on relations between them.



We either accept the (belief-based) figment as REAL - i.e. TRUE,  
or not.


No, we only build hypothesis, and study the interpretations of them,  
and their local adequacy with facts.
We don't have to pronounce on the truth, except at the pause coffee  
(or other psychoactive substances).






The first case we call 'evidence'. Or: justification. Then base our  
belief (even system) on such.


Looks fine for me. Justification are always based on hypothesis, that  
we can assume plausible with different degree of local applications.


For the big picture all theories are wrong, but some might be less  
wrong than others.


Bruno






John (M)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even  
if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic  
(stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer  
enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such  
changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does  
indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.


So: happy illusions!


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that  
this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real  
stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences.  
This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and  
stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can  
evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence.


Bruno





John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist  
yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com

 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I

  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the  
capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all  
possible

  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an  
experience,

  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for  
time or

 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

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

 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-24 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal and all--

Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me? 
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. 
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like 
we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more 
accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent 
wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. 
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed 
exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. 


So: happy illusions! 


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might 
help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity 
is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often 
when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their 
own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't 
evaluate intelligence.


Bruno








John Mikes


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-24 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com

 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I

  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the  
capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all  
possible

  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an  
experience,

  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for  
time or

 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard

I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just  
ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only  
partially mechanistic.


Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be  
only partially mechanistic.


You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be  
a part of reality.


I think that you are confusing total computable with partial  
computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her  
behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much  
more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than  
anything like an answer.


The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only  
interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience  
with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be  
other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in  
them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest  
in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years.



Mechanism is not a part of something. It is a proposition about the  
possibility of surviving with an artificial brain of some sort. Then  
we get a quantitative explanation of how the laws of physics  
evolved---logico-arithmetically, sufficiently precise to test the  
hypothesis. Don't confuse science-fiction and theoretical reasoning.  
They can overlap, but are different things.


Bruno






Craig


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ 
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-24 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:59:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 
  
  
  On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: 
  
  On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
  wrote: 
   That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my 
 position. I 
   have 
   never once said that existence is contingent upon human 
 consciousness. I 
   state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity 
 for 
   sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible 
   forms of 
   'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, 
   otherwise 
   there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. 
  
  However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or 
  consciousness or experience. 
  
  
  Then in what sense does it 'exist'? 

 It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't 
 Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard 


 I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas 
 to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially 
 mechanistic.


 Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only 
 partially mechanistic. 


 You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part 
 of reality.
  

 I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. 
 The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total 
 computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we 
 can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer.


 The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in 
 the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect 
 scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out 
 there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would 
 care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly 
 in the last 25 years.



 Mechanism is not a part of something. It is a proposition about the 
 possibility of surviving with an artificial brain of some sort. 


Is there anything other than mechanism in the universe in your use of 
mechanism?
 

 Then we get a quantitative explanation of how the laws of physics 
 evolved---logico-arithmetically, sufficiently precise to test the 
 hypothesis. Don't confuse science-fiction and theoretical reasoning. They 
 can overlap, but are different things.


They are different things, but sometimes we like to think that one is the 
other.

Craig
 


 Bruno





 Craig


 Bruno




 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Jd-t9onQ4nkJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-24 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal and all--

Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world,
yhe point is to escape from the world of science
into the world of Mind.


Those worlds are not necessarily separated.

Bruno






- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?


On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even  
if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic  
(stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer  
enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such  
changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does  
indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.


So: happy illusions!


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that  
this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real  
stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences.  
This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and  
stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can  
evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence.


Bruno





John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist  
yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com

 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I

  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the  
capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all  
possible

  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an  
experience,

  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for  
time or

 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

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

 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-24 Thread John Mikes
Bruno:

WHAT 'evidences'??? we have no way to judge them. We either *accept* the
(belief-based) figment as REAL - i.e. TRUE, *or not*.
The first case we call 'evidence'. Or: justification. Then base our belief
(even system) on such.
John (M)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:

 Richard:
 and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
 we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
 Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is
 like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be
 more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all.
 Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat
 Earth.
 But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed
 exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.

 So: happy illusions!


 Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this
 might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.

 But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real
 stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This
 happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity,
 especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special
 competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence.

 Bruno




 John Mikes

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
 
  On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position.
 I
   have
   never once said that existence is contingent upon human
 consciousness. I
   state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
   sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
   forms of
   'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
   otherwise
   there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.
 
  However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
  consciousness or experience.
 
 
  Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

 It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
 Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard

 
 
  That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
  Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
  motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
  necessary?
  Richard
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups
  Everything List group.
  To view this discussion on the web visit
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
 
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King 

Agreed, the constant other observer needed to
maintain the world when I close my eyes need not be God, 
But it has to be something like God. Omnipresent, for example.
Plato called it the One.

Nothing would work without physical laws, and these cannot be directly 
perceived.
Gravity, for example, cannot be perceived. Force also cannot be perceived, 
only its effects. And time and space cannot be observed. cannot
be directly perceived. And do I fall on the floor when I turn out the lights
at night because it is too dark to see my bed ? The list of counterfactuals
goes on and on.  

So I say that, whatever the cause, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-22, 08:39:30
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?


On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.


Hi Roger,

This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; it server 
only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is real. When we 
consider large numbers of observers that can communicate with each other 
meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and have no need for the 
excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less meaningful 
when we see that the point of view of such an entity cannot be transformed into 
that of a real observer that we can communicate with, as it is somehow special. 
We learn from GR and QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or 
observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the 
God hypothesis irrelevant.
Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role again for 
mathematics puzzles me!


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg 


But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time
as humans, wouldn't there be a strange population of objects,
and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being
in the same space ?


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.


That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have 
never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state 
again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor 
participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. 
Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no 
possibility of anything ever coming into being.



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. 

Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about 
so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism.
 

If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?

It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were 
in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 
'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells 
and organs, that's another matter.
 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So the world did not exist before man ?

The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define 
all experience in the universe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
Hi Craig, 

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for 
something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that 
critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless 
fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.



Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain 
that?

come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how 
one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not 
possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of 
sense. There has never been anything but sense.


Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
complexification of (this) universe?

Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.
 



What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the 
classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and 
decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me 
- faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and 
subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of 
multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being 
led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?



Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific 
theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?

My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of 
sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function 
of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other 
words I am seeing the idea of objectivity

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Stephen P. King

Dear Roger,

That which cannot be perceived, does not exist. But perception is 
a subtle thing! Is there an entity associated with physical laws or 
'gravity', or are such an abstract concept that we 'percept' 
conceptually? Perception, beliefs, knowledge all seems tied together... 
But I would add that just be cause our language paints a particular 
picture in our minds, there need not be anything like such 'outside of 
us'. How fast we forget the lesson we can can find in Descartes 
/Meditations/...




On 1/23/2013 5:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Agreed, the constant other observer needed to
maintain the world when I close my eyes need not be God,
But it has to be something like God. Omnipresent, for example.
Plato called it the One.
Nothing would work without physical laws, and these cannot be directly 
perceived.
Gravity, for example, cannot be perceived. Force also cannot be 
perceived,

only its effects. And time and space cannot be observed. cannot
be directly perceived. And do I fall on the floor when I turn out the 
lights
at night because it is too dark to see my bed ? The list of 
counterfactuals

goes on and on.
So I say that, whatever the cause, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly.




- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-22, 08:39:30
*Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?

On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.

Hi Roger,

This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God
has; it server only to act as an impartial observer so that
everything is real. When we consider large numbers of observers
that can communicate with each other meaningfully, we obtain a
means to define 'reality' and have no need for the excess
hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less
meaningful when we see that the point of view of such an entity
cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can
communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and
QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or
observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty
much makes the God hypothesis irrelevant.
Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role
again for mathematics puzzles me!

-- 
Onward!


Stephen

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:49, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I have
never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I

state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible  
forms of
'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,  
otherwise

there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.


However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
consciousness or experience. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
necessary?


I think so. In earlier presentations I said that comp can make a  
bridge between Cantor realism and Brouwer idealism/intuitionism/ 
constructivism. But I eventually realize that when people hate other  
people, they all hate even more the diplomats and the bridge. But a  
lot of the Heraclitean insight does make sense in the parmenidean  
realm once we recognize the unavoidability of the first person  
perspective.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote:


Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if  
it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic  
(stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer  
enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such  
changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does  
indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.


So: happy illusions!


Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this  
might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow.


But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real  
stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences.  
This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and  
stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate  
special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence.


Bruno





John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com  
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com

 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I

  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the  
capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all  
possible

  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time  
or

 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

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

 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com  
wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  
whats...@gmail.com

 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my  
position. I

  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human  
consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the  
capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all  
possible

  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time  
or

 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard

I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just  
ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only  
partially mechanistic.


Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only  
partially mechanistic. I think that you are confusing total computable  
with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes  
her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much  
more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than  
anything like an answer.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:21:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
  
 But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time
 as humans,


They do, of course. They experience what they are able to experience of the 
world just as we do.
 

 wouldn't there be a strange population of objects,
 and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being
 in the same space ?


No, there would be exactly what there is. 

If a child experiences a kitchen counter as being a place that is too high 
to reach, does that preclude an adult from seeing that same kitchen counter 
as being a surface which is reached conveniently? If you sit in a room with 
your wife on one side of the couch, does that mean that the experience of 
the room can't also exist in which you are on the other side of the couch?

  

 

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
 you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
 there is real prior to our individual observation because
 it is all observed by God.
  


 That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I 
 have never once said that existence is contingent upon *human*consciousness. 
 I state again and again that it is experience itself - the 
 capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all 
 possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an 
 experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into 
 being.

   

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 That is such a silly pov. 


 Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking 
 about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan 
 idealism.
  

  If a boulder
 fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
 you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?


 It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you 
 were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be 
 no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your 
 cells and organs, that's another matter.
  

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 So the world did not exist before man ?


 The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not 
 define all experience in the universe.
  

   
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 

 Hi Craig, 

 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
  
 The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
 possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
 fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
 what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
 aetheric emptiness full mass.


 Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to 
 explain that?


 come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation 
 is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

 Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not 
 out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is 
 simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') 
 outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense.

   Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
 complexification of (this) universe?


 Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
 proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
 sense. To make more and more and better sense.
  




 What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything 
 beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous 
 appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's 
 tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete 
 sensory 
 appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite 
 - 
 meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-23 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 
  
  
  On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: 
  
  On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
  wrote: 
   That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. 
 I 
   have 
   never once said that existence is contingent upon human 
 consciousness. I 
   state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity 
 for 
   sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible 
   forms of 
   'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, 
   otherwise 
   there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. 
  
  However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or 
  consciousness or experience. 
  
  
  Then in what sense does it 'exist'? 

 It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't 
 Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard 


 I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas 
 to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially 
 mechanistic.


 Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only 
 partially mechanistic. 


You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part 
of reality.
 

 I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. 
 The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total 
 computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we 
 can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer.


The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in 
the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect 
scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out 
there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would 
care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly 
in the last 25 years.

Craig


 Bruno




 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-22 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. 

Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about 
so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism.
 

If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?

It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were 
in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 
'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells 
and organs, that's another matter.
 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So the world did not exist before man ?

The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define 
all experience in the universe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
Hi Craig, 

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for 
something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that 
critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless 
fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.



Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain 
that?

come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how 
one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not 
possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of 
sense. There has never been anything but sense.


Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
complexification of (this) universe?

Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.
 



What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the 
classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and 
decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me 
- faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and 
subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of 
multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being 
led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?



Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific 
theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?

My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of 
sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function 
of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other 
words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective 
perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent 
with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the 
phenomenon itself.

Craig
 



We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? 
What are we assuming about energy?

Craig 



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 
Empty Space is not Empty! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 

The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational 
aether. 

No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  And 
gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.


Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space 
in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


You need to remember that it's mass

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-22 Thread Stephen P. King

On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.

Hi Roger,

This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; 
it server only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is 
real. When we consider large numbers of observers that can communicate 
with each other meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and 
have no need for the excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role 
becomes even less meaningful when we see that the point of view of such 
an entity cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can 
communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and QM that 
there are neither preferred reference frames or observational points of 
view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the God hypothesis 
irrelevant.
Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role 
again for mathematics puzzles me!


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-22 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
  have
  never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I
  state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
  sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
  forms of
  'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
  otherwise
  there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.

 However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
 consciousness or experience.


 Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard



 That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
 Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
 motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
 necessary?
 Richard

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-22 Thread John Mikes
Richard:
and what is  -  NOT  - an illusion? are you? or me?
we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK.
Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is
like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be
more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all.
Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat
Earth.
But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed
exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats.

So: happy illusions!

John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
 
  On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I
   have
   never once said that existence is contingent upon human
 consciousness. I
   state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for
   sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible
   forms of
   'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience,
   otherwise
   there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being.
 
  However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or
  consciousness or experience.
 
 
  Then in what sense does it 'exist'?

 It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't
 Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard

 
 
  That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
  Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
  motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness
  necessary?
  Richard
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To view this discussion on the web visit
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
 
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-22 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 
  
  
  On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: 
  
  On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
  wrote: 
   That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. 
 I 
   have 
   never once said that existence is contingent upon human 
 consciousness. I 
   state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for 
   sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible 
   forms of 
   'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, 
   otherwise 
   there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. 
  
  However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or 
  consciousness or experience. 
  
  
  Then in what sense does it 'exist'? 

 It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't 
 Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard 


I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas 
to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially 
mechanistic.
 


  
  
  That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. 
  Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your 
  motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness 
  necessary? 
  Richard 
  
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups 
  Everything List group. 
  To view this discussion on the web visit 
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 
  
  To post to this group, send email to 
  everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 

  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
  everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 
  For more options, visit this group at 
  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OmwLFfn7ecsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-21 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

So the world did not exist before man ?

The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define 
all experience in the universe.
 



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 
Hi Craig, 

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for 
something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that 
critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless 
fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.



Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain 
that?

come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how 
one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not 
possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of 
sense. There has never been anything but sense.


Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
complexification of (this) universe?

Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.
 



What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the 
classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and 
decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me 
- faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and 
subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of 
multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being 
led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?



Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific 
theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?

My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of 
sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function 
of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other 
words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective 
perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent 
with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the 
phenomenon itself.

Craig
 



We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? 
What are we assuming about energy?

Craig 



On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 
Empty Space is not Empty! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 

The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational 
aether. 

No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  And 
gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.


Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space 
in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even though they 
don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic 
energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.



Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but 
from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a 
physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity 
if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason 
why we need a Higgs mechanism? 


Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got 
the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.

Brent

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

To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list

Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-21 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 That is such a silly pov. 


Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking 
about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan 
idealism.
 

 If a boulder
 fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
 you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?


It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you 
were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be 
no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your 
cells and organs, that's another matter.
 

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 So the world did not exist before man ?


 The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not 
 define all experience in the universe.
  

   
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 

 Hi Craig, 

 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
  
 The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
 possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
 fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
 what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
 aetheric emptiness full mass.


 Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to 
 explain that?


 come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is 
 how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

 Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out 
 of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is 
 simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') 
 outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense.

   Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
 complexification of (this) universe?


 Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
 proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
 sense. To make more and more and better sense.
  




 What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything 
 beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous 
 appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's 
 tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete 
 sensory 
 appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - 
 meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. 
 It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular 
 reasoning 
 and instrumental assumptions. 

 What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as 
 a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
 constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
 Universe from Nothing falsifiable?


 Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become 
 scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?


 My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the 
 context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood 
 as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private 
 qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from 
 an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a 
 theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only 
 to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself.

 Craig
  




 We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure 
 particles? What are we assuming about energy?

 Craig 



 On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

 On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 

 Empty Space is not Empty! 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
  

 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's 
 gravitational aether. 


 No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  
 And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.

 Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and 
 the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


 You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even 
 though they don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes 
 from 
 the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-20 Thread Telmo Menezes
Hi Craig,

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is
 possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you
 fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics,
 what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and
 aetheric emptiness full mass.


Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain
that?
Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable
complexification of (this) universe?



 What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath
 the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance,
 and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically
 obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory
 appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite -
 meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses.
 It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning
 and instrumental assumptions.

 What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a
 particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the
 constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a
 Universe from Nothing falsifiable?


Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become
scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?



 We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure
 particles? What are we assuming about energy?

 Craig



 On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote:

 Empty Space is not Empty!

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8


 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's
 gravitational aether.


 No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.
 And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.

 Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the
 space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism.


 You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even
 though they don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from
 the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.


 Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair
 creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo?
 That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have
 wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the
 substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism?


 Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein
 got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.

 Brent

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-20 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

 Hi Craig,

 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
 possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
 fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
 what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
 aetheric emptiness full mass.


 Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to 
 explain that?


come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is 
how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of 
enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply 
not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside 
of sense. There has never been anything but sense.

Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
 complexification of (this) universe?


Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
sense. To make more and more and better sense.
 

  


 What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath 
 the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, 
 and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically 
 obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory 
 appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - 
 meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. 
 It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning 
 and instrumental assumptions. 

 What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
 particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
 constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
 Universe from Nothing falsifiable?


 Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become 
 scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?


My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context 
of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a 
function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private 
qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from 
an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a 
theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only 
to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself.

Craig
 

  


 We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure 
 particles? What are we assuming about energy?

 Craig



 On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 

 Empty Space is not Empty! 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
  

 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's 
 gravitational aether. 


 No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  
 And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.

 Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the 
 space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


 You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even 
 though they don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from 
 the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.


 Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair 
 creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? 
 That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have 
 wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the 
 substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? 


 Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; 
 Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.

 Brent
  
  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7DsdwnspbQoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe 

Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-20 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 So the world did not exist before man ?


The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not 
define all experience in the universe.
 

  
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07
 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ?

  

 On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: 

 Hi Craig, 

 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
  
 The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is 
 possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you 
 fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, 
 what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and 
 aetheric emptiness full mass.


 Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to 
 explain that?


 come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is 
 how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. 

 Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out 
 of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is 
 simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') 
 outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense.

   Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable 
 complexification of (this) universe?


 Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the 
 proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of 
 sense. To make more and more and better sense.
  




 What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath 
 the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, 
 and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically 
 obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory 
 appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - 
 meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. 
 It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning 
 and instrumental assumptions. 

 What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as 
 a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
 constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
 Universe from Nothing falsifiable?


 Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become 
 scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable?


 My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the 
 context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood 
 as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private 
 qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from 
 an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a 
 theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only 
 to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself.

 Craig
  




 We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure 
 particles? What are we assuming about energy?

 Craig 



 On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

 On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 

 Empty Space is not Empty! 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
  

 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's 
 gravitational aether. 


 No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  
 And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.

 Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the 
 space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


 You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even 
 though they don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from 
 the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.


 Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair 
 creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? 
 That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have 
 wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the 
 substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? 


 Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; 
 Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.

 Brent

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ. 

 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email

Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-19 Thread Laurent R Duchesne
Empty Space is not Empty! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 

The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational 
aether. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and 
the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 

Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, 
but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems 
like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle 
complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? 
Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? 

Quantization and organization of space is orchestrated by matter fields 
which originate from, and follow, exclusive dimensions already existing as 
matter. Energy being quantized into particles by spontaneously emitted 
sub-atomic particles (Higgs boson?) in hyperspace. 

Matter is a continuous, time dependent, and thermodynamically open, 
self-organizing process. Particles, as they move through the CBR, need to 
continuously re-ordinate the space that constitutes them. Particles are in 
constant motion, continuously processing space/information. Matter is 
formed by this process, and mass increases directly proportional to the 
amount of process. This is why the denser a particle is, or the faster it 
moves in relation to other objects, the more massive it becomes. Mass is 
directly proportional to process. 

Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with the 
quantum. Before the quantum there is aether. There can be an aether without 
quanta, but there can be no quanta without an aether. Matter is dependent 
on the aether (aka., Higgs field), it depends on the background as an 
energy supply, hence, wave-particle complementarity. 

Aether is the empty space on which the universe sits. It is the 
physicalists' god. 

-- 
Laurent 

http://www.aether-is-one.com 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Z9HSg63rXMoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-19 Thread meekerdb

On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote:

Empty Space is not Empty!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. 


No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  And gravity doesn't 
depend on the Higgs field.


Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which 
it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism.


You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even though they don't have 
rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound 
by gluons, not the Higgs effect.




Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from 
where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical 
impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not 
because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs 
mechanism?


Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel 
prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-19 Thread Craig Weinberg
The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible 
for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to 
factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you 
get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric 
emptiness full mass.

What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath 
the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, 
and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically 
obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory 
appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - 
meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. 
It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning 
and instrumental assumptions. 

What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a 
particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the 
constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a 
Universe from Nothing falsifiable?

We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure 
particles? What are we assuming about energy?

Craig


On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: 

 Empty Space is not Empty! 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 

 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's 
 gravitational aether. 


 No.  There's no gravitational aether.  Einstein never suggested such.  And 
 gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.

 Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the 
 space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. 


 You need to remember that it's mass-energy.  Photons gravitate even though 
 they don't have rest mass.  Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the 
 kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.


 Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, 
 but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems 
 like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle 
 complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? 
 Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? 


 Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein 
 got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.

 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity.


No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a
experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether does
not exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case
physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it
further.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

  So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity.


 No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a 
 experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether does 
 not exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case 
 physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it 
 further. 

   John K Clark 


My understanding is that light has the same velocity as 'change' or 'news' 
does, which is always 'the maximum possible rate in spacetime'. Light is 
not literally present in a vacuum, but manifests only in the sensory-motor 
qualities of matter. Its velocity is virtual.

Craig
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NkFR9yeGUvsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote:

  So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity.


 No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a
 experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether does not
 exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case
 physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it
 further.

   John K Clark


 My understanding is that light has the same velocity as 'change' or 'news'
 does, which is always 'the maximum possible rate in spacetime'. Light is not
 literally present in a vacuum, but manifests only in the sensory-motor
 qualities of matter. Its velocity is virtual.

 Craig
What makes you think that light is not present in a vacuum?
Richard




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NkFR9yeGUvsJ.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, January 11, 2013 2:02:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 
  
  
  On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 
  
  On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: 
  
   So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity. 
  
  
  No, light has a fixed velocity with or without the aether, it's a 
  experimental result not a theory. So either the luminiferous aether 
 does not 
  exist or it does but doesn't do anything of interest, in which case 
  physicists have better things to do with their time than investigate it 
  further. 
  
John K Clark 
  
  
  My understanding is that light has the same velocity as 'change' or 
 'news' 
  does, which is always 'the maximum possible rate in spacetime'. Light is 
 not 
  literally present in a vacuum, but manifests only in the sensory-motor 
  qualities of matter. Its velocity is virtual. 
  
  Craig 
 What makes you think that light is not present in a vacuum? 


My thinking is that:


   1. We wouldn't know the difference if light was or was not present in a 
   vacuum.
   2. The only reason we assume that light is present in a vacuum is if we 
   assume that light behaves like a substance.
   3. Light clearly does not behave like a substance. It doesn't accumulate 
   or exist independently of illuminated substances.
   4. If light was actually only present at the source and target objects 
   of illumination, we would get exactly the kinds of results when we looked 
   at the behavior of light (velocity = c, mass = 0, ambiguous/paradoxical 
   model of photon, odd non-local effects as seen in double-slit, can't slow 
   down in a vacuum, etc)
   5. What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the 
   visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the 
   character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation. A 
   microwave oven cooks water in food, but doesn't warm the walls like a 
   conventional oven. This gives a hint at how EM effects arise from 
   composition, scale, and structure of matter, not from bombardment by 
   particles or waves which concretely exist in space.
   6. Once we have sensitivity as a fundamental principle of matter, we 
   don't need to assume that everything is involuntarily pushed and pulled 
   around - there can be consensual participation on all levels. Just as we 
   feel the conditions of our environment and it influences our disposition, 
   so too does everything in the entire universe have detection capacities of 
   different sorts. The capacity of all matter to detect and respond to all 
   matter is electromagnetism - i.e. electromagnetism is what sensory-motor 
   interaction looks like from a distance. From this, we have a clear basis 
   for biological narratives, human consciousness, etc. We are made of 
   sensory-motor capacities on multiple levels. We see a summary of what our 
   retinal cells see, not an abstract code generated by 'signals' and 
   converted invisibly in a solipsistic never-never land.

Craig
 

 Richard 


  
  
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups 
  Everything List group. 
  To view this discussion on the web visit 
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NkFR9yeGUvsJ. 
  To post to this group, send email to 
  everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 

  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
  everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 
  For more options, visit this group at 
  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LU_9vM29gesJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread meekerdb

On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt 
as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the 
receiver-transmitter relation.


That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they couldn't make it 
work and I doubt that you can either.  You seem to be ignoring that there is already a 
unified theory of EM than includes light and it explains things like static electricity 
and electric motors as well as most light phenomena.  And it does not explain 
photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you 
need quantum electrodynamics.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

 What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible 
 range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the 
 EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation.


 That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they 
 couldn't make it work and I doubt that you can either.  You seem to be 
 ignoring that there is already a unified theory of EM than includes light 
 and it explains things like static electricity and electric motors as well 
 as most light phenomena.  And it does not explain photoelectric effect, the 
 black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you need 
 quantum electrodynamics.


I'm not suggesting a literal emission/absorption across space. I say 
'transmitter-receiver' in the figurative sense, as empathy or money are 
'sent'. Static electricity and electric motors seen in the behavior of 
matter, not in a vacuum. There is no reason why all observed effects of EM 
would not be local to (sensory-motive) matter.

Craig



 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZOIp8lgoG8EJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread meekerdb

On 1/11/2013 2:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible 
range is
felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is 
defined by
the receiver-transmitter relation.


That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they 
couldn't make
it work and I doubt that you can either.  You seem to be ignoring that 
there is
already a unified theory of EM than includes light and it explains things 
like
static electricity and electric motors as well as most light phenomena.  
And it does
not explain photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, and the 
stability of
atoms - for which you need quantum electrodynamics.


I'm not suggesting a literal emission/absorption across space. I say 
'transmitter-receiver' in the figurative sense, as empathy or money are 'sent'. Static 
electricity and electric motors seen in the behavior of matter, not in a vacuum. There 
is no reason why all observed effects of EM would not be local to (sensory-motive) matter.


They can't all be local because that violates Lorentz invariance.   But of course if you 
want to do it 'figuratively' you can do anything you want.  Maybe you can write 
instructions on how to be a liberal metaphysician.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-11 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, January 11, 2013 5:45:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/11/2013 2:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

 What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible 
 range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the 
 EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation.


 That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they 
 couldn't make it work and I doubt that you can either.  You seem to be 
 ignoring that there is already a unified theory of EM than includes light 
 and it explains things like static electricity and electric motors as well 
 as most light phenomena.  And it does not explain photoelectric effect, the 
 black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you need 
 quantum electrodynamics.
  

 I'm not suggesting a literal emission/absorption across space. I say 
 'transmitter-receiver' in the figurative sense, as empathy or money are 
 'sent'. Static electricity and electric motors seen in the behavior of 
 matter, not in a vacuum. There is no reason why all observed effects of EM 
 would not be local to (sensory-motive) matter.
  

 They can't all be local because that violates Lorentz invariance.  


Local to all matter in the universe, not to any particular instantiation of 
matter. 
 

 But of course if you want to do it 'figuratively' you can do anything you 
 want.  Maybe you can write instructions on how to be a liberal 
 metaphysician.


It's not 'anything I want', it's just a different interpretation of energy 
which, as far as I can tell, would be consistent on all levels of 
observation. By definition it doesn't contradict any existing theory, but 
it just models the observations which any theory is based on as material 
changes conducted non-spatially. I am flipping the entire concept of energy 
over. It isn't separate from matter. Energy is nothing but what matter 
does. Not what space does, not what photons do, but what atoms do, or more 
precisely, what is seen and done through atoms.

Craig


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Axe_7SIT1PYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-10 Thread Craig Weinberg

The problem, in my view, is the term physical.

*http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physical*
1.* a. * Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or 
spirit. See Synonyms at bodily http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bodily.
* b. * Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a 
physical dance performance.
* c. * *Slang* Involving or characterized by violence: A real cop 
would get physical (TV Guide).
*2. * Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
*3. * Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with 
them, especially physics.

If 'physical' deals with bodies, matter, and energy, then all forces, 
fields, spaces and times would have to be physical. Matter by definition is 
measurable spatially, and energy is measurable as functions over time, so 
you couldn't have physics without them

The fussing over physical vs non-physical is to me a red herring, as the 
more important understanding is the distinction between public 
presentations (literal sense of matter, space, time, and energy) and 
private presentations (figurative sense of 'what matters', 'put into 
place', timing, and qualitative 'energy' (feeling, effort)). 

When we say that something is a 'big deal', how do we know that we are 
talking about something of importance? What's the connection between 
literal size and figurative significance? The answer to that exposes the 
implicit coherence of sense itself, in all of its monadic/Indra's Net-like 
granular holism.

To me it is abundantly obvious that all forces are private intentions 
making themselves public, and all fields are public sensations making their 
private integration public. While matter can be too small or too diffuse to 
be visible to human beings, no body or particle can be intangible or 
wavelike on its own level of description. Wherever we find that ambiguity, 
we have neglected completely the possibility of matter as sensitive agents 
and have presumed a nonsensical, literalized carrier of 'force' or 'field' 
across public space.

Once we understand that the development of privacy is the fundamental 
function of physics, then the question of whether something is physical or 
not becomes absurd. There is nothing that isn't physical, because physics 
is sensory-motor participation, and there can never be anything which is 
not a sensory-motor phenomenon.

Craig


On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:10:07 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

 Hi Bruno Marchal   

 Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not. 
 That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein. 

 That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view 
 that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment, 
 that there is no aether, is now obsolete. 



 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 
 1/10/2013   
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen 
 - Receiving the following content -   


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bG0tolGaLE8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Is there an aether ?

2013-01-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 10 Jan 2013, at 14:10, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

Spacetime is physical, but space is not and time is not.
That is, according to Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, and Einstein.

That's why I find it hard to accept the revisionist view
that the former interpretation of the M-M experiment,
that there is no aether, is now obsolete.



See my early comment on the physical.

I define the physical by the relatively observable, and this is  
defined in term of number relations (and collection of number  
relations). It generalizes relativity theory (like I think QM-Everett  
already does).
In the wiki quote, there is an idea that the quantum vacuum is a sort  
of aether. I cannot judge as I have no idea of what aether means.  
There is a suggestion that Dark matter is aether. Well, I have no idea  
what Dark matter but then it took me 40 years to figure out what  
matter can be, and not be. We will see. I am not advocating any truth.
I just try to share my fascination that with some special hypothesis  
we can use math to put light on all this. The first shock should be  
the realization that we are still very ignorant on the fundamental  
matters.


Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/10/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.