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<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is >> possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you >> fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, >> what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and >> aetheric emptiness full mass. >> > > Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to > explain that? >
"come from" is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable > complexification of (this) universe? > Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. > > >> >> What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath >> the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, >> and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically >> obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory >> appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - >> meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. >> It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning >> and instrumental assumptions. >> >> What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a >> particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the >> constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a >> Universe from Nothing falsifiable? >> > > Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become > scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? > My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig > > >> >> We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure >> particles? What are we assuming about energy? >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: >>> >>> Empty Space is not Empty! >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8> >>> >>> >>> The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's >>> gravitational aether. >>> >>> >>> No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. >>> And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. >>> >>> Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the >>> space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. >>> >>> >>> You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even >>> though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from >>> the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect. >>> >>> >>> Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair >>> creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? >>> That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have >>> wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the >>> substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? >>> >>> >>> Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; >>> Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eJaLG4dqJsIJ. >> >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7DsdwnspbQoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe 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.
