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 boulder > fell off of a cliff above you onto you that > you 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. > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ? > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi Craig Weinberg >> >> So 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. > > >> >> >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Craig Weinberg >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 >> *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> 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 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. >> >> -- > 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/-/fyuMqw9VOucJ. > 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/-/C3PBZJ4EBFgJ. 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.
