On 10 Jul 2012, at 23:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi John,
What I have been doing is exploring the soft underbelly of
physics, those sets of "truths" that are just assumed to be true.
For example, I have become convinced that a lot of the difficulties
in physics are due to its assumption that "substance" is primitive.
There is even an entire article in the online Stanford encyclopedia
on the notion of substance and therein is laid out the problems for
all to see, never-the-less science staggers on, assuming that
"stuff" is the explanation to every phenomena. The Higgs boson is,
IMHO, yet another example of the "stuff" mentality. The alternative
is to consider that "process" is primitive; that all forms of
"stuff" are, ultimately, the result of some underlying process;
there is no such thing as primitive stuff!
You can see how this kinda dovetails with Bruno's anti-
materialism and yet he seems to just fall over into "immaterial"
stuff. :_(
Where?
Bruno
With process we can get some interesting hints of answers to many of
these questions that vex us so such as the nature of time and even
consciousness. Logic is recast in terms of interactive game theory
(ala Jaakko Hintikka) and physics becomes a question of how spaces
evolve relative to each other (this is already been understood every
since Lagrange and Hamilton).
It all really boils down to "belief systems" as you wisely point
out. :-)
On 7/10/2012 4:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, a 'belief system' may be reassuring.
I spent a lifetime in active R&D exercising conventional science,
till I lost by belief in many figments of it. It came gradually
like one's losing a religious faith: trying to THINK 'outside the
box' and getting nowhere. (First reflection: I am poorly informed
and my conclusions are inaccurate).
Then the extension of our worldview into items still unknown, as
exemplified by the gradual enrichment in our epistemic inventory
over the millennia. We are NOT at the perfection's end...Some more
yet has got to come and I braced myself for surprises.
I cannot recall when and where, but allegedly prof. Higgs repealed
his work at his old age - how sorry it would be if true.
The observations upon which science is based supply only explained
information, accurate and complete to the level of the 'era'. Then
explanations are applied based on assumptions, presumptions, nth
level consequences of such and sometimes recalled/changed.
Bruno's and my agnosticism are based on some basic 'faith' to start
from: his from numerals, arithmetic (I think) mine from a never
learnable infinite complexity of which we only know a portion.
Everybody has a personal choice whether to include the Higgs boson
in his/her personal worldview. And there are many others...
John M
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net
> wrote:
Say that it is not so!
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/?ref=rss
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
