On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:13:15 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Craig, > > Yes of course there can be motion or relations without an experience if > you mean a human experience. >
No, I don't mean human experience. Not even biological experience, just experiential phenomena. > The only people who believe otherwise are a few comp and > intersubjectivists who believe nothing happened in the whole universe > before humans came along. > I don't think that there are any many genuine solipsists or anthropcentrists out there outside of religious fanatics, but the accusation that there are such beliefs out there is very popular. I'm talking about physics and ontology, it has nothing to do with biology or Homo sapiens. Craig > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:39:45 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> Can there be any motion or relation without an experience in which a >> sense of motion or relation is literally encountered? >> >> >> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:37:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Here's one more theory from my book on Reality: >>> >>> All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative >>> motion. They actually have to be different forms of the same thing for >>> there to be mass-energy conservation, and different forms of relative >>> motion are what they are. >>> >>> Rest mass in this theory is just vibrational motion. It is relative >>> motion, but since this relative motion is so spatially confined, it appears >>> the same to all external observers. It is equally relative to all >>> observers, thus it appears absolute in having the same value relative to >>> all observers. Thus rest mass is the same to all observers, even though it >>> is actually relative motion. >>> >>> This is somewhat similar to string theory's notion of particles as >>> vibrating strings. But in my theory the vibration itself is not the >>> particle and there is no need for extra dimensions. In my theory, the >>> vibration takes place in ordinary 3D space and represents only the mass of >>> the particle. Only in 3D space is it interconvertible to other 3D relative >>> motions. >>> >>> [In my theory particles themselves are composed of their particle >>> properties (not vibrating strings), one of which is mass-energy, but that's >>> another part of the theory I won't get into in this post.] >>> >>> So in this theory the conversion of mass to energy is quite simple. It's >>> just the conversion of the equivalent amount of vibrational motion into >>> either the relative linear motion of kinetic energy and/or the relative >>> wave motion of EM energy. >>> >>> This theory neatly conceptually unifies all forms of mass and energy, >>> and the conversion of one form to another as simply the conversion of one >>> form of relative motion to an equivalent amount of another. >>> >>> All other forms of energy neatly conform to this explanation including >>> what we call potential energy which is really just an accounting trick. >>> What we call potential energy is actually just some form of blocking (or >>> impinging) energy from a system external to the system under consideration. >>> To just analyze the system itself, we imagine a potential energy IN the >>> system equivalent to the actual blocking energy outside the system. It just >>> makes things easier to analyze. So potential energy is not a real form of >>> energy, not a real relative motion, but an accounting trick to confine >>> analysis to an isolated system when systems are not actually energetically >>> isolated from their environments. >>> >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
