Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

That is such a silly pov. If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that 
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
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  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 

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 po

Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

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  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *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 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
>  
>
> 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.
>
> M

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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  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 

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 th

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
> you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
> there is real prior to our individual observation because
> it is all observed by God.
>  
>

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.

 
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>
>  
>
> 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 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *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 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 w

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg  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. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness
necessary?
Richard

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> 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'?
 

> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. 
> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your 
> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness 
> necessary? 
> Richard 
>

-- 
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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg  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 
>> 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

>
>>
>> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
>> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
>> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness
>> necessary?
>> Richard
>
> --
> 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
>
> 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.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[John Mikes]

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!

John Mikes

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 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 
> >> 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
>
> >
> >>
> >> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse.
> >> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your
> >> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness
> >> necessary?
> >> Richard
> >
> > --
> > 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J.
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> 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  
> >> 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.
 

>
> > 
> >> 
> >> That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. 
> >> Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your 
> >> motor-sensory experience in order to make time,& consciousness 
> >> necessary? 
> >> Richard 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 
> > 
> > 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/-/OmwLFfn7ecsJ.
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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 


But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time
as humans, wouldn't there be a strange population of objects,
and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being
in the same space ?


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
there is real prior to our individual observation because
it is all observed by God.


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.



- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?




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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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  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 qu

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:21:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
>  
> But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time
> as humans,
>

They do, of course. They experience what they are able to experience of the 
world just as we do.
 

> wouldn't there be a strange population of objects,
> and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being
> in the same space ?
>

No, there would be exactly what there is. 

If a child experiences a kitchen counter as being a place that is too high 
to reach, does that preclude an adult from seeing that same kitchen counter 
as being a surface which is reached conveniently? If you sit in a room with 
your wife on one side of the couch, does that mean that the experience of 
the room can't also exist in which you are on the other side of the couch?

  
>
 
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:38:50
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>
>  
>
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> If you knew more about the history of philsophy,
>> you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out
>> there is real prior to our individual observation because
>> it is all observed by God.
>>  
>>
>
> 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.
>
>   
>>
>> - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *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 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 do