Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Roger Clough
Jan 9, 2013, 7:04:02 AM1/9/13
to everything-list, - MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, yuksel.altinok, Win Sturgeon, rszapp, rffarmer, rakman, makoilaci, kosz, johnwagner, farmerr, eric_stroud, dfine_1, - derek abbott, Andrea S Kishne, David Bonnell (pref.), David Bonnell
Bruno,
Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment,
space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). There is no aether.
Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all,
suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are
nonphysical.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment,
space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). There is no aether.
Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all,
suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are
nonphysical.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
Bruno Marchal
Jan 9, 2013, 10:10:25 AM1/9/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment,
> space itself does not exist (is nonphysical).
> There is no aether.
> Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all,
> suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are
> nonphysical.
But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are
using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of)
discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it
reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all
sound universal numbers.
Bruno
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/9/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Richard Ruquist
Jan 9, 2013, 10:29:00 AM1/9/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment,
>> space itself does not exist (is nonphysical).
>
>
> Space-time remains physical, here.
>
>
>> There is no aether.
>> Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all,
>> suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are
>> nonphysical.
>
>
> Then all forces are non physical.
>
> But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using.
> All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete
> number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable
> and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers.
>
> Bruno
>
>
Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes
>
> On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment,
>> space itself does not exist (is nonphysical).
>
>
> Space-time remains physical, here.
>
>
>> There is no aether.
>> Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all,
>> suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are
>> nonphysical.
>
>
> Then all forces are non physical.
>
> But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using.
> All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete
> number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable
> and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers.
>
> Bruno
>
>
that are full of "infinities of discrete number relations"
and that a "flux density of infinities" can flow between them.
Or is that overboard?
Richard
points and lines
word geometry?
Roger Clough
Jan 10, 2013, 8:10:07 AM1/10/13
to everything-list, - MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, makoilaci, - derek abbott
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]
1/10/2013
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]
1/10/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
Roger Clough
Jan 10, 2013, 8:33:40 AM1/10/13
to everything-list
Hi Richard Ruquist
Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ?
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/10/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody
Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
>> everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Craig Weinberg
Jan 10, 2013, 11:07:30 AM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com, - MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, makoilaci, - derek abbott
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.
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
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
Richard Ruquist
Jan 10, 2013, 11:47:26 AM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Well Roger,
Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to.
Think of the number infinities in terms of a
static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU.
The number infinities exist in the monad relationships
at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU
One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space.
"A". Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities,
The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields
are variations in the density of the infinities
of the monad number relationships.
"B". Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space.
The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles
including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital.
Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow.
Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow.
resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls.
The collapse problem is to get from A to B.
"A" happens in the analog Mind space
where the number infinities are continuous.
Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC
where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction,
we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly.
But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities,
except those at the point of interaction,
to be normalized or cancelled.
Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities.
That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities
to collapse to every possible quantum particle
that could be created by the interaction.
Apparently the Mind has the same ability.
He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one
by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future.
So only one particle becomes physical.
(If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can)
Because in a Block Universe there is no future.
There is no time or consciousness.
nothing is happening.
Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU,
where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective.
There is still no time or consciousness.
Time is created when "conscious free will" choices
force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS.
The hard problem is knowing
where "conscious free will" comes from.
It could come from Godelian incompleteness
or it could come from biological complexity
exceeding the universal calculational capacity,
But in the end the magic of consciousness
requires a 1p leap of faith.
NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles
continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled,
So it is one or the other.
yanniru
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to.
Think of the number infinities in terms of a
static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU.
The number infinities exist in the monad relationships
at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU
One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space.
"A". Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities,
The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields
are variations in the density of the infinities
of the monad number relationships.
"B". Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space.
The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles
including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital.
Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow.
Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow.
resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls.
The collapse problem is to get from A to B.
"A" happens in the analog Mind space
where the number infinities are continuous.
Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC
where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction,
we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly.
But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities,
except those at the point of interaction,
to be normalized or cancelled.
Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities.
That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities
to collapse to every possible quantum particle
that could be created by the interaction.
Apparently the Mind has the same ability.
He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one
by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future.
So only one particle becomes physical.
(If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can)
Because in a Block Universe there is no future.
There is no time or consciousness.
nothing is happening.
Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU,
where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective.
There is still no time or consciousness.
Time is created when "conscious free will" choices
force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS.
The hard problem is knowing
where "conscious free will" comes from.
It could come from Godelian incompleteness
or it could come from biological complexity
exceeding the universal calculational capacity,
But in the end the magic of consciousness
requires a 1p leap of faith.
NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles
continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled,
So it is one or the other.
yanniru
>>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Craig Weinberg
Jan 10, 2013, 12:29:26 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:47:26 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
But in the end the magic of consciousness
requires a 1p leap of faith.
And vice versa.That's because they are the same thing. Consciousness is literally a leap across mechanism, computation, and physics. That is what free will is made of. Free will cheats. Cheating is free will. Math and physics don't cheat because they are built from islands of meaning in a vacuum. Cheating is a private agenda exercised publicly.
It only makes sense that could be the case if 1p is primary, so that laws and certainties are circumstantial consequences arising from 1p and not the other way around. Experienced meaning is the plenum within which all spatio-temporal-functional-substantial gaps are generated.
Craig
Craig
Richard Ruquist
Jan 10, 2013, 12:31:41 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well Roger,
>
> Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to.
>
> Think of the number infinities in terms of a
> static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU.
>
> The number infinities exist in the monad relationships
> at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU
> One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space.
>
> "A". Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities,
> The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields
> are variations in the density of the infinities
> of the monad number relationships.
>
> "B". Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space.
> The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles
> including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital.
>
> Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow.
> Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow.
> resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls
and such points and lines suggest string theory.
> Well Roger,
>
> Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to.
>
> Think of the number infinities in terms of a
> static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU.
>
> The number infinities exist in the monad relationships
> at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU
> One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space.
>
> "A". Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities,
> The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields
> are variations in the density of the infinities
> of the monad number relationships.
>
> "B". Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space.
> The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles
> including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital.
>
> Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow.
> Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow.
> resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls
Richard Ruquist
Jan 10, 2013, 12:42:06 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Because in a Block Universe there is no future.
> There is no time or consciousness.
> nothing is happening.
or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe.
However, I suspect that the qauntum Mind
uses a more or less constant flow of time
out of convenience(;<)
Richard
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3x_JpsFl9o0J.
Bruno Marchal
Jan 10, 2013, 1:01:03 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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.
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], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/10/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>
Craig Weinberg
Jan 10, 2013, 1:25:55 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:42:06 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:47:26 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> But in the end the magic of consciousness
>> requires a 1p leap of faith.
>
>
> And vice versa.That's because they are the same thing. Consciousness is
> literally a leap across mechanism, computation, and physics. That is what
> free will is made of. Free will cheats. Cheating is free will. Math and
> physics don't cheat because they are built from islands of meaning in a
> vacuum. Cheating is a private agenda exercised publicly.
>
> It only makes sense that could be the case if 1p is primary, so that laws
> and certainties are circumstantial consequences arising from 1p and not the
> other way around. Experienced meaning is the plenum within which all
> spatio-temporal-functional-substantial gaps are generated.
>
> Craig
I have come around to agreeing with you
Nice!
> Because in a Block Universe there is no future.
> There is no time or consciousness.
> nothing is happening.
Only the 1p perspective is dynamic
or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe.
That does agree with me. I don't see a block universe, but I do see that 3p is static slices of the totality of 1p. I might say that the uniformity of that 3p static representation in reducing all 1p qualities to positions is block like in it's consistency, but not in the sense of there being a literal universe of all possibilities frozen in a spatial firmament like memory locations. Once you have sense as the foundation, you don't need a future which is fully realized, it can be the case that some aspects of some futures are available sooner or later within specific experiences and narratives. Your intuition of the future, for example, is helping you create (or avoid) that future as much as it is a window into what has already happened in 'the' future. The blocking is more like a 1p jet engine taking in raw batter to cook into 3p pancakes than a wormhole drilling through an eternal pancake.
Speculation, obviously... just trying to show one way that sense can change the assumptions which compel Block models.
Craig
Richard Ruquist
Jan 10, 2013, 2:08:35 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
but not necessarily the physical universe(s).
Craig Weinberg
Jan 10, 2013, 2:30:11 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:08:35 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Only the 1p perspective is dynamic
>> or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe.
I should have mentioned that the Mind is a block universe
but not necessarily the physical universe(s).
I see Mind as the native sense-making experience of an individual human being. If Mind is a block universe, than so is flavor or color.
Richard Ruquist
Jan 10, 2013, 3:10:13 PM1/10/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:08:35 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Only the 1p perspective is dynamic
>> >> or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe.
>>
>> I should have mentioned that the Mind is a block universe
>> but not necessarily the physical universe(s).
>>
>
> I see Mind as the native sense-making experience of an individual human
> being. If Mind is a block universe, than so is flavor or color.
Yes and all other qualia. Here I am more with Bruno than you.
>
>
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:08:35 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Only the 1p perspective is dynamic
>> >> or causes dynamicism- changes in the Block Universe.
>>
>> I should have mentioned that the Mind is a block universe
>> but not necessarily the physical universe(s).
>>
>
> I see Mind as the native sense-making experience of an individual human
> being. If Mind is a block universe, than so is flavor or color.
I break from Bruno over MWI vs. Feynman
Richard
Roger Clough
Jan 11, 2013, 11:40:35 AM1/11/13
to everything-list
M-M did find that the speed of light was independent of direction.
If there were an aether, and light propagated through it as a wave,
and since the earth would be moving through the ether, then light should travel at
different speeds in different directions.
But it didn't. So either there's no ether, or light has a
fixed velocity. Same physical result, so take your pick
of interpretations.
__._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity: New Members 2
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use ? Send us Feedback .
__,_._,___
Roger Clough
Jan 11, 2013, 11:46:38 AM1/11/13
to everything-list, - MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, David Bonnell (pref.), David Bonnell
Yet another interpretation of the M-M experiment (that light travelled
at the same speed regardless of direction) is that as the Bible says, the
earth is fixed, and presumably the aether with it. So no relative motion problem.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/11/2013
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-11, 11:40:34
Subject: Is there an aether ?
at the same speed regardless of direction) is that as the Bible says, the
earth is fixed, and presumably the aether with it. So no relative motion problem.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/11/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Roger Clough
----- Receiving the following content -----
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-11, 11:40:34
Subject: Is there an aether ?
Roger Clough
Jan 11, 2013, 11:57:14 AM1/11/13
to everything-list
Hi Richard Ruquist
The monads are not BEC's, because presumably BECs are physical.
Monads aren't
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/11/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody
Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-10, 11:47:26Subject: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
>>> everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Spudb...@aol.com
Jan 11, 2013, 12:02:49 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Is experimentation even theoretically possible at the Planck length/width?
This could effect EM, and, of course also impacts your Light
post.
John Clark
Jan 11, 2013, 12:02:57 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Richard Ruquist
Jan 11, 2013, 1:59:57 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
BEC condensates may contain any kind of particle, not just physicsl
particles. However, we presume that the mathematics is more or less
the same for all BECs and therefore we can come to understand BECs
with physical experiments. Presumably monads are particles, seeing
that they are discrete and separate.
>>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
particles. However, we presume that the mathematics is more or less
the same for all BECs and therefore we can come to understand BECs
with physical experiments. Presumably monads are particles, seeing
that they are discrete and separate.
>>>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Craig Weinberg
Jan 11, 2013, 2:00:32 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Richard Ruquist
Jan 11, 2013, 2:02:40 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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.
Craig Weinberg
Jan 11, 2013, 3:13:37 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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.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?
My thinking is that:
- We wouldn't know the difference if light was or was not present in a vacuum.
- The only reason we assume that light is present in a vacuum is if we assume that light behaves like a substance.
- Light clearly does not behave like a substance. It doesn't accumulate or exist independently of illuminated substances.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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
meekerdb
Jan 11, 2013, 3:22:53 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 1/11/2013 9:02 AM, 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.
It's not even that anymore, it's a convention. Since we use clocks
to measure distances the speed-of-light is just a conversion factor
now between length and time units:
299,792,458m/s notice that there is no experimental uncertainty.
Brent
299,792,458m/s notice that there is no experimental uncertainty.
Brent
meekerdb
Jan 11, 2013, 4:45:39 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Craig Weinberg
Jan 11, 2013, 5:25:19 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
meekerdb
Jan 11, 2013, 5:45:19 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Brent
Craig Weinberg
Jan 11, 2013, 5:58:57 PM1/11/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Message has been deleted
meekerdb
Jan 19, 2013, 5:14:03 PM1/19/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote:
No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.
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.
Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.
Brent
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
Craig Weinberg
Jan 19, 2013, 10:37:17 PM1/19/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
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
Telmo Menezes
Jan 20, 2013, 8:20:32 AM1/20/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hi Craig,
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=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.
Craig Weinberg
Jan 20, 2013, 11:20:07 AM1/20/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Roger Clough
Jan 20, 2013, 2:40:53 PM1/20/13
to everything-list
Hi Craig Weinberg
So the world did not exist before man ?
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7DsdwnspbQoJ.
Craig Weinberg
Jan 20, 2013, 3:47:31 PM1/20/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig WeinbergSo 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.
Roger Clough
Jan 21, 2013, 4:53:25 AM1/21/13
to everything-list
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 WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fyuMqw9VOucJ.
Craig Weinberg
Jan 21, 2013, 11:53:45 AM1/21/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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 boulderfell off of a cliff above you onto you thatyou 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.
Roger Clough
Jan 22, 2013, 7:22:06 AM1/22/13
to everything-list
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 WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C3PBZJ4EBFgJ.
Stephen P. King
Jan 22, 2013, 8:39:30 AM1/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough
wrote:
Hi Craig WeinbergIf you knew more about the history of philsophy,you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world outthere is real prior to our individual observation becauseit 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!
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
Craig Weinberg
Jan 22, 2013, 3:38:50 PM1/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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 outthere is real prior to our individual observation becauseit 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.
Richard Ruquist
Jan 22, 2013, 3:49:09 PM1/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
> 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.
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?
Richard
Craig Weinberg
Jan 22, 2013, 3:54:24 PM1/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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'?
Richard Ruquist
Jan 22, 2013, 4:20:58 PM1/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
>
>
> 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'?
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.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
John Mikes
Jan 22, 2013, 4:52:25 PM1/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Craig Weinberg
Jan 22, 2013, 5:28:51 PM1/22/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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.
Roger Clough
Jan 23, 2013, 5:18:15 AM1/23/13
to everything-list
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. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-22, 08:39:30
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
Roger Clough
Jan 23, 2013, 6:21:10 AM1/23/13
to everything-list
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 WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2h246HMwB9gJ.
Stephen P. King
Jan 23, 2013, 7:47:13 AM1/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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...
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...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
-- Onward! Stephen
Bruno Marchal
Jan 23, 2013, 10:36:00 AM1/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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/
Bruno Marchal
Jan 23, 2013, 11:07:09 AM1/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Bruno Marchal
Jan 23, 2013, 11:11:01 AM1/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Craig Weinberg
Jan 23, 2013, 12:15:30 PM1/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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 timeas 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 beingin 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?
Craig Weinberg
Jan 23, 2013, 12:21:31 PM1/23/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Roger Clough
Jan 24, 2013, 3:48:24 AM1/24/13
to everything-list
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 MarchalReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
Bruno Marchal
Jan 24, 2013, 11:59:03 AM1/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
--
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.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Craig Weinberg
Jan 24, 2013, 12:35:44 PM1/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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 Marchal
Jan 24, 2013, 3:07:59 PM1/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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 scienceinto the world of Mind.
Those worlds are not necessarily separated.
Bruno
John Mikes
Jan 24, 2013, 4:41:37 PM1/24/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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)
Roger Clough
Jan 25, 2013, 9:42:56 AM1/25/13
to everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal
Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
Bruno Marchal
Jan 25, 2013, 2:42:04 PM1/25/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Bruno Marchal
Jan 27, 2013, 6:56:38 AM1/27/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Roger Clough
Jan 30, 2013, 5:55:48 AM1/30/13
to everything-list
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 MarchalReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38
Bruno Marchal
Feb 1, 2013, 10:38:04 AM2/1/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Roger Clough
Feb 1, 2013, 12:44:45 PM2/1/13
to everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal
Good. And I should have said, rather than "I cannot prove that",
instead, "i don't need to prove that any more
than that, as an infant, in fact I trusted my mother."
The error is never in the perception (Firstness) , for that is what you
actually perceive
or feel, the error is always in Secondness, what you make of it. Or as
a lie or deliberate distortion in Thirdness, thta being what you tell
others you
have seen or felt.
So Firstness is always true because it contains no words.
Always true means I think Platonia.
Secondness can contain an error. Contingency.
Thirdness can be a lie.
Which may help to explain why I believe Peirce's triad
to be necessary if you want completeness.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 10:38:04
Bruno Marchal
Feb 3, 2013, 11:35:50 AM2/3/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 01 Feb 2013, at 18:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Good. And I should have said, rather than "I cannot prove that",instead, "i don't need to prove that any morethan that, as an infant, in fact I trusted my mother."The error is never in the perception (Firstness) , for that is what you actually perceiveor feel, the error is always in Secondness, what you make of it. Or asa lie or deliberate distortion in Thirdness, thta being what you tell others youhave seen or felt.
Your firstness, if it concerns perception is given in 3p, with comp, by Bp & Dt & p. It is the 5th hypostases.
I will stick on the most common use of first person and third person. But as you see we can peobably make sense of Peirce in the comp theory.
So Firstness is always true because it contains no words.Always true means I think Platonia.
The first person has a link with platonia (truth), but is not platonia.
Secondness can contain an error.
Your secondness is already 3p.
Contingency.Thirdness can be a lie.
Lie are the proposition of the type Bf, or BBf, etc. But with comp (and the classical theory of knowledge, so are "dreams", "error" and "death", curiously enough.
Which may help to explain why I believe Peirce's triadto be necessary if you want completeness.
No problem. Machines might follow Peirce's intuition. But with different vocabulary.
Roger Clough
Feb 4, 2013, 2:32:40 PM2/4/13
to everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal
No, Firstness is raw experience (1p), prior to description (3p).
In Leibniz, at least, the only true perceiver is God or the One,
both beyond the supreme monad. This 1p is not yet knowledge,
just nerve signals. Active viewing.
So only God or the One as active viewer is 1p, and what he returns back to
the person would be personal knowledge or a description of the experience
(2p or
Secondness) which becomes Thirdness or 3p only when shared with
others
(expressed in words as knowledge by description).
While in the intermediate step, it is Secondness or 2p, that is, personal
knowledge by acquiantance
or experience.
So I would place Firstness and 1p in Platonia.
And I believe that 2p or knowledge by experience or acquaintance,
and being wordlessly personal is in Platonia.
To summarize, then, according to L,
1p is actually raw experience, the experience of the One as seen thriough
an individual's aspect.
2p is what the Supreme monad returns to the individual, as personal or
phenomenal knowedge,
knowledge by acquaintance.
3p is 2p turned into or expressed as words or descriptions (3p) to be
expressed to others if this is done.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-03, 11:35:50Subject: Re: Why Peirce's triad is more complete than 1p->3p
Telmo Menezes
Feb 4, 2013, 5:19:36 PM2/4/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hi Roger,
1p/3p is a label for a very specific idea. You might disagree with the idea, and that's fine, but it's useful to label ideas so that we know what we're talking about. Otherwise how can you tell us that you disagree with it?
If you succeed in forcing 2p in there, you effectively end up with two labels for one idea and zero labels for another idea. Do you see the problem?
Best,
Telmo.
Roger Clough
Feb 5, 2013, 8:17:09 AM2/5/13
to everything-list
Hi Telmo Menezes
Garbage in, garbage out.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo MenezesReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-02-04, 17:19:36Subject: Re: Again, why the triad is necessary--> 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of knowledge
Hi Roger,1p/3p is a label for a very specific idea. You might disagree with the idea, and that's fine, but it's useful to label ideas so that we know what we're talking about. Otherwise how can you tell us that you disagree with it?If you succeed in forcing 2p in there, you effectively end up with two labels for one idea and zero labels for another idea. Do you see the problem?Best,Telmo.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal�No, Firstness is raw experience (1p), prior to description (3p).In Leibniz, at least, the only true perceiver is God or the One,both beyond the supreme monad. This 1p is not yet knowledge,just nerve signals. Active viewing.�So only God or the One as active viewer is 1p, and what he returns back tothe person would be personal knowledge or a description of the experience (2p or
Secondness) which becomes Thirdness or�3p爋nly when shared with others
(expressed in words as knowledge by description).While in the intermediate step, it is Secondness or 2p, that is, personal knowledge by acquiantance
牋牋or experience.
�So I would place Firstness and 1p in Platonia.And I believe that�2p or knowledge by experience or acquaintance,and being wordlessly personal is in Platonia.�
To summarize,爐hen, according to L,
�1p is actually raw experience, the experience of the One as seen thriough an individual's aspect.�2p is what the Supreme monad returns to the individual, as personal or phenomenal knowedge,
牋牋knowledge by acquaintance.
�3p is 2p turned into or expressed as words or descriptions (3p) to be expressed to others if this is done.���
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-02-03, 11:35:50Subject: Re: Why Peirce's triad is more complete than 1p->3p
On 01 Feb 2013, at 18:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal�Good. And I should have said, rather than "I cannot prove that",instead, �"i don't need to prove that any more
than that, as an infant, 爄n fact營 trusted my mother."
�The error is never in the perception (Firstness) , for that is what you actually perceiveor feel, the error is always in Secondness, what you make of it. Or asa lie or deliberate distortion in Thirdness, thta being what you tell others youhave seen or felt.
Your firstness, if it concerns perception is given in 3p, with comp, by Bp & Dt & p. It is the 5th hypostases.I will stick on the most common use of first person and third person. But as you see we can peobably make sense of Peirce in the comp theory.
�So Firstness is always true because it contains no words.
牋牋Always true means I think Platonia.
The first person has a link with platonia (truth), but is not platonia.�
Secondness can contain an error.Your secondness is already 3p.
Contingency.Thirdness can be a lie.Lie are the proposition of the type Bf, or BBf, etc. But with comp (and the classical theory of knowledge, so are "dreams", "error" and "death", curiously enough.
�Which may help to explain why I believe Peirce's triadto be necessary if you want completeness.No problem. Machines might follow Peirce's intuition. But with different vocabulary.Bruno
�
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-02-01, 10:38:04Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:55, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal�Theology is an objective,燿erivative. human爌ursuit based on reason,
��
Hi Roger,
��
��
Richard:and what is �- 燦OT �- an illusion? are you? or me?�
�
�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
____________________________________________________________________
DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org
<%--DreamMail_AD_END-->DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org
Russell Standish
Feb 5, 2013, 6:54:51 PM2/5/13
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sorry for appearing thick, but I missed the "garbage in" bit. :)
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:17:09AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Telmo Menezes
>
> Garbage in, garbage out.
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Telmo Menezes
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-02-04, 17:19:36
> Subject: Re: Again, why the triad is necessary--> 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of knowledge
>
>
> Hi Roger,
>
>
> 1p/3p is a label for a very specific idea. You might disagree with the idea, and that's fine, but it's useful to label ideas so that we know what we're talking about. Otherwise how can you tell us that you disagree with it?
>
>
> If you succeed in forcing 2p in there, you effectively end up with two labels for one idea and zero labels for another idea. Do you see the problem?
>
>
> Best,
> Telmo.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:17:09AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Telmo Menezes
>
> Garbage in, garbage out.
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Telmo Menezes
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2013-02-04, 17:19:36
> Subject: Re: Again, why the triad is necessary--> 1p, 2p,and 3p as types of knowledge
>
>
> Hi Roger,
>
>
> 1p/3p is a label for a very specific idea. You might disagree with the idea, and that's fine, but it's useful to label ideas so that we know what we're talking about. Otherwise how can you tell us that you disagree with it?
>
>
> If you succeed in forcing 2p in there, you effectively end up with two labels for one idea and zero labels for another idea. Do you see the problem?
>
>
> Best,
> Telmo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages