Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 10 Jan 2013, at 13:13, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Platonism is not at least overtly Berkeley's idealism, but is idealism at least of the type described below. OK. That was my point. With comp we get a pythagorean sort of immaterialist theory. Like in Plotinus, both matter and God are not part of the Being. They do "exist", but in a different sense from what exist in the sensible, or intelligible sense. Bruno idealism noun \i-'de-(?-)?liz-?m, 'i-(?)de-\ Definition of IDEALISM 1 a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:55:41 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:20, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You say, "Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic." Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? Some Platonist have defended idealism, but the problem then is that we can no more an explanation for mind. With comp, we do get a simple theory of mind (computer science/ mathematical logic), and we can explain both consciousness and the illusion of matter from it, and this leads us back to the root of Platonism: Pythagorism. There is only numbers and numbers computable relations (in the outside view). The inside view get richer, though. All you need is arithmetical realism: the idea that "43 is prime" in all possible situation, independently of the existence of humans, aliens, bacteria, etc. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".that would act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electr
Re: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
Hi Bruno Marchal Platonism is not at least overtly Berkeley's idealism, but is idealism at least of the type described below. idealism noun \i-'de-(?-)?liz-?m, 'i-(?)de-\ Definition of IDEALISM 1 a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 09:55:41 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:20, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > > You say, "Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic." > > Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? Some Platonist have defended idealism, but the problem then is that we can no more an explanation for mind. With comp, we do get a simple theory of mind (computer science/ mathematical logic), and we can explain both consciousness and the illusion of matter from it, and this leads us back to the root of Platonism: Pythagorism. There is only numbers and numbers computable relations (in the outside view). The inside view get richer, though. All you need is arithmetical realism: the idea that "43 is prime" in all possible situation, independently of the existence of humans, aliens, bacteria, etc. Bruno > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/9/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 > Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness > > > On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> For the record, >> >> Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: >> the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; >> >> and the body: mainly electrons and photons. >> >> We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. > > Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a > universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person > indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than > arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in > machine's mind. > > > >> We have some division on if that property extends to the body: >> like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the >> duality... > > No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like > mind. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> yanniru >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough >> wrote: >>> Wave collapse and consciousness >>> >>> According to the discussion below, a field only has potential >>> existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to >>> interact with it. >>> This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we >>> may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical >>> entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons >>> moving in/through it. >>> >>> Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing >>> the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. >>> When the photon collides with something, the probability >>> is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. >>> >>> So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the >>> collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such >>> as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field >>> to cause a collision. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 1/8/2013 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Roger Clough >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 >>> Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. >>> >>> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> >>> IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the >>> definition below, >>> a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".that >>> would >>> act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" >>> tells us that a fi
Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:20, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You say, "Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic." Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? Some Platonist have defended idealism, but the problem then is that we can no more an explanation for mind. With comp, we do get a simple theory of mind (computer science/ mathematical logic), and we can explain both consciousness and the illusion of matter from it, and this leads us back to the root of Platonism: Pythagorism. There is only numbers and numbers computable relations (in the outside view). The inside view get richer, though. All you need is arithmetical realism: the idea that "43 is prime" in all possible situation, independently of the existence of humans, aliens, bacteria, etc. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".that would act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. " [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which "particles" become field singularities, but th
Re: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
Hi Bruno Marchal You say, "Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic." Wouldn't a Platonist say instead that arithmetic arises from mind ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 05:13:03 Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: > For the record, > > Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: > the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; > > and the body: mainly electrons and photons. > > We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. > We have some division on if that property extends to the body: > like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the > duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno > > yanniru > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough > wrote: >> Wave collapse and consciousness >> >> According to the discussion below, a field only has potential >> existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to >> interact with it. >> This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we >> may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical >> entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons >> moving in/through it. >> >> Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing >> the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. >> When the photon collides with something, the probability >> is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. >> >> So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the >> collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such >> as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field >> to cause a collision. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/8/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Roger Clough >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 >> Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. >> >> >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> >> IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the >> definition below, >> a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".that >> would >> act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" >> tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence >> itself. >> >> A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits >> the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball >> tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the >> gravitational field itself. >> It has no physical existence, only potential existence. >> >> Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only >> detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) >> >> http://science.yourdictionary.com/field >> >> field >> >> "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction >> of a force, >> such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged >> object, that would >> act on a body at any given point in that region. " >> >> >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/8/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Bruno Marchal >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 >> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. >> >> >> >> >> On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> >> Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories >> quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. >> >> >> This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" >> are no
Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 08 Jan 2013, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. Well, with comp, the mind arise from arithmetic. Mind is what a universal numbers can handle, by construction and by first person indeterminacy selection, which gives a reality far bigger than arithmetic. Aristhmetic seen from inside go far beyond arithmetic in machine's mind. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... No, matter, once we assume comp, is much more than arithmetic, like mind. Bruno yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".that would act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. " [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which "particles" become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even "material". With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter fundamentally
Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Roger Clough wrote: Wave collapse and consciousness According to the discussion below, a field only has potential existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with it. This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons moving in/through it. Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. When the photon collides with something, the probability is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field to cause a collision. Are you saying there is nothing without the probe? This can be refuted in some quantum experience where interference comes from the absence of a probe on a path. IN QM, even the (amplitude of) probability is "physically real". And what is a particles if not a singularity in a field (as in quantum field theory). I agree with you, at some other level. Yes, the physical reality is only a cosmic GSM to help localizing ourselves in a (vaster) reality. Yes, the physical is a map. But this concerns both particles and forces/fields. You might still be too much materialist for comp, Roger. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".that would act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field itself. It has no physical existence, only potential existence. Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) http://science.yourdictionary.com/field field "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region. " [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" are not physical? It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which "particles" become field singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them physical, even "material". With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by measurement. May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in different sense. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non physical things with some class of physical phenomena. Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter fundamentally exists". But comp is already contradicting "weak materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among possible other things). Some physicists are non materialist and even
Re: Wave collapse and consciousness
For the record, Roger's post illuminates an optimal division between the mind: the EM, and quantum waves and, fields; and the body: mainly electrons and photons. We all seem to agree that the mind is arithmetic. We have some division on if that property extends to the body: like, for instance, arithmetic photons that seemingly bridge the duality... yanniru On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Wave collapse and consciousness > > According to the discussion below, a field only has potential > existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to interact with > it. > This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we > may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical > entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons > moving in/through it. > > Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing > the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. > When the photon collides with something, the probability > is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. > > So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the > collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such > as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field > to cause a collision. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/8/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Roger Clough > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 > Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. > > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the definition below, > a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".that would > act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" > tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence itself. > > A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits > the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball > tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational field > itself. > It has no physical existence, only potential existence. > > Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only > detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) > > http://science.yourdictionary.com/field > > field > > "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, > such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that > would > act on a body at any given point in that region. " > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/8/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 > Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. > > > > > On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: > > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories > quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. > > > This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields" are not > physical? > It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field, or a > gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field theory is just > a formulation of quantum mechanics in which "particles" become field > singularities, but they have the usual observable properties making them > physical, even "material". > With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and physics is no > more the fundamental science, but many things remains physical, like fields. > They do emerge from the way machine can bet on what is directly accessible by > measurement. > > > May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in different > sense. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/7/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 > Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. > > > On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi meekerdb >> >> Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are >> inconsistent >> if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. > > > All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist > theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non > physical things with some class of physical phenomena. > > Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter > fundamentally exists". But comp is already contradicting "weak > materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among > possible other things). > > Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist > ( (which is stronger and is n
