----- 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.
But in the end the magic of consciousness
requires a 1p leap of faith.
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
> 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.
>>
>> 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).
----- 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.
> So either there's no ether, or light has a fixed velocity.
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?
Craig
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.
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.
Brent
On 1/11/2013 2:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 4:45:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:On 1/11/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:What we call light is a visual experience. EM radiation below the visible range is felt as heat. This means that the entirety of the character of the EM is defined by the receiver-transmitter relation.
That's Feynman-Wheeler emitter/absorber theory of EM radiation - they couldn't make it work and I doubt that you can either. You seem to be ignoring that there is already a unified theory of EM than includes light and it explains things like static electricity and electric motors as well as most light phenomena. And it does not explain photoelectric effect, the black body spectrum, and the stability of atoms - for which you need quantum electrodynamics.
I'm not suggesting a literal emission/absorption across space. I say 'transmitter-receiver' in the figurative sense, as empathy or money are 'sent'. Static electricity and electric motors seen in the behavior of matter, not in a vacuum. There is no reason why all observed effects of EM would not be local to (sensory-motive) matter.
They can't all be local because that violates Lorentz invariance.
But of course if you want to do it 'figuratively' you can do anything you want. Maybe you can write instructions on how to be a liberal metaphysician.
Brent
Empty Space is not Empty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether.
Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism.
Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism?
The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass.
What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions.
What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable?
We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy?
Craig
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote:Empty Space is not Empty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8
The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether.
No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field.
Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism.
You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect.
Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism?
Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ.
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?
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?
----- 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.
Hi Craig WeinbergSo the world did not exist before man ?
----- 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.
Hi Craig Weinberg
That is such a silly pov.
If a boulderfell off of a cliff above you onto you thatyou didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
----- 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.
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.
-- Onward! Stephen
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.
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.
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
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-22, 08:39:30
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
----- 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.
--
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
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!
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.
Hi Craig Weinberg
But if plants and animals experience the world at the same timeas humans,
wouldn't there be a strange population of objects,and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects beingin the same space ?
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.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09
Subject: Re: Is there an aether ?
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.
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.
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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59
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.
Hi Bruno Marchal
Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38
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.
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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 10:38:04
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.
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 triadto be necessary if you want completeness.
----- 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
----- 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.