Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7704Re: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there

Expand Messages
  • Bill Harris
    Jun 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Daniel, Ya, definitely, bring it on. Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: daniel_needles
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:55 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there


      Bill,
      I have a theory I'm working on regarding existence before the BB.
      It matches observed data; however, it requires adjustments to current
      cosmology and thus is a bit long winded. If you'd like I could
      summarize under a separate cover. (I suspect it will be an itterative
      process.)

      Thanks,
      Daniel


      --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris" <valleywestdental@q...> wrote:
      > Daniel, Thinking of the BB as a reaction, what reagents could
      account for the observed products ? Bill
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Bill Harris
      > To: existlist@y...
      > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:59 AM
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      >
      >
      > Daniel, It would seem we retrace the path of the Skeptics. AS
      they said scientific inquiry, and reason itself break down at the
      threshold of the atom, our modern absurdists draw the line at the
      electron.
      > Reason would have me think that some entity be it Quantum
      gravity, quark- gluon plasma, or strings feed the big bang.
      Hypernovi are fed by super heater gas clouds and they approach big
      bang magnitude. I would like to know what theoretical entity could
      exist on both sides of the Big bang? Bill
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: daniel_needles
      > To: existlist@y...
      > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:20 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      >
      >
      > Bohr also held the belief that QM could only be described not
      > explained. This kind of position has beeen held repetivily
      throughout
      > Western thought. Even the Greeks after discovering the concept
      of an
      > atom found themselves spinning thoughts of thoughts with no
      more
      > empiricle data to base it on. Eventually it led to the Skeptics
      who
      > also proposed reality could only be described not explained.
      That is,
      > basically like the mind science cannot turn itself off easily.
      > Instead it goes into denial or shock until rescued by more data
      via
      > better tools. Things have changed a bit since Bohr. We still
      > cannot "explain" QM but there are a number of theories being
      > proposed. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn is a
      good
      > book on this topic.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Daniel
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris" <valleywestdental@q...>
      wrote:
      > > Daniel, Niels Bohr, in his letters reported Heisenberg as
      > misrepresenting his activities regarding a fission bomb. Bohr
      did
      > not wish to discredit his collegue and the letters were held
      until
      > after Bohr`s death. Bill
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Bill Harris
      > > To: existlist@y...
      > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:30 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > >
      > >
      > > Daniel, I now understand what you are getting at. I will
      have to
      > find the study using soft electrons. Perhaps Eduard remembers.
      They
      > were working in 10 to the minus11 secounds time frame. In that
      time
      > frame they were finding position for an electron. To my
      understanding
      > we had never approached anything like that scrutany. Bill
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: daniel_needles
      > > To: existlist@y...
      > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:34 PM
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > >
      > >
      > > Bill,
      > > IMHO I think you missed my point. This translates
      quatum
      > duality of
      > > mommentum and location into a macro setting. Did it make
      sense?
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Daniel
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris"
      <valleywestdental@q...>
      > wrote:
      > > > Daniel, the principle only extends to quantum level
      entities,
      > the
      > > rest is covered in Special relativity , General
      relativity or
      > > Newtonian physics. From your example , what is the time
      frame
      > between
      > > sequences? That would put us squarly in Newton`s world.
      Bill
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: daniel_needles
      > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:48 PM
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Bill,
      > > > I humbly disagree. I'll give you a macro experiment
      that
      > even
      > > the
      > > > Captian can appreciate. I give you two timestamped
      > photographs
      > > of a
      > > > moving car. They are instant pictures sequential in
      time.
      > You
      > > know
      > > > everything there is about the car and location. You
      just
      > were not
      > > > there to witness the pictures. Now...
      > > >
      > > > Given ONLY the pictures tell me the exact speed at an
      exact
      > > location
      > > > of the car?
      > > >
      > > > Using one picture you can give me the exact location
      > x,y,z,t.
      > > However
      > > > you can tell me nothing about the speed. Using two
      pictures
      > you
      > > can
      > > > tell me the speed by comparing the distance and time
      > covered but
      > > you
      > > > cannot tell me the exact location since x, y, z, and
      t are
      > > smeered
      > > > over the duration of the two shots.
      > > >
      > > > That is the basic of the principal in a nutt shell.
      > > >
      > > > Thanks,
      > > > Daniel
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris"
      > <valleywestdental@q...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > Daniel, I have kept current on Heisenberg`s
      uncertainty
      > > principle.
      > > > It is at least partially discredited. By using soft
      ex-rays
      > > > measurements of the position of a lepton have been
      made at
      > > extremely
      > > > small time increments.The problem is now thought of
      as more
      > > technical
      > > > than theoretical
      > > > > On a strictly ad hominum level Heisenburg was less
      than
      > > forthcoming
      > > > to his colleagues regarding his efforts to build a
      nazi
      > bomb. It
      > > > appears he tried to cover his shortcomings by
      claiming he
      > > > intentionally was dragging his feet. In reality he
      was
      > working as
      > > > hard as possible
      > > > > The principle itself has been used to degrade
      science as
      > a
      > > tool of
      > > > discovery. If you look back in this script you would
      find
      > a long
      > > > discussion relating to absurdism and the uncertainty
      > principle.
      > > In
      > > > retrospect, challenging the validity of all science
      because
      > of
      > > the
      > > > appearance of one obscure theory was silly. Bill
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: daniel_needles
      > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 4:20 PM
      > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@v...>
      wrote:
      > > > > > Daniel,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Wow ... lots to talk about.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1) Lets start with the "so what".
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have done some reading on this "new age
      physics"
      > with all
      > > > that
      > > > > stuff about
      > > > > > quantum physics and such. Perhaps not as much
      as
      > other may
      > > > have.
      > > > > Anyway
      > > > > > there seems to be a lot of interest in Werner
      > Heisenberg's
      > > > > uncertainty
      > > > > > principle and it is often put forward as the
      basis of
      > not
      > > > knowing
      > > > > all about
      > > > > > reality. That as soon as we try to get in
      there to
      > do an
      > > > > experiment of
      > > > > > measurement, we ourselves affect the experiment
      > results.
      > > That
      > > > you
      > > > > cant
      > > > > > determine speed and location at the same time.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > All this is good stuff. We need to know about
      > quantum
      > > > mechanics
      > > > > and how the
      > > > > > speed of light applies to the space-time
      continuum.
      > But
      > > this
      > > > is
      > > > > not part of
      > > > > > our personal world. We live in a Newtonian
      world,
      > not a
      > > > Quantum
      > > > > world.
      > > > > > Philosophies are intended for ordinary humans.
      What
      > we
      > > need is
      > > > > some kind of
      > > > > > guidance that tells us why we should get up in
      the
      > morning,
      > > not
      > > > > what happens
      > > > > > to dark matter in a far corner of the galaxy.
      When I
      > hear
      > > the
      > > > words
      > > > > > "quantum mechanics" in relation to philosophy,
      my
      > reaction
      > > > is "so
      > > > > what".
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 2) the idea of "enough for survival" runs in
      the
      > same
      > > vein.
      > > > How
      > > > > many times
      > > > > > in the day have you made a decision based upon
      > quantum
      > > > mechanics?
      > > > > My point
      > > > > > is that we may not know reality fully, but then
      we
      > don't
      > > need
      > > > to.
      > > > > If I am
      > > > > > about to walk on ice, then I only need to know
      > whether I
      > > can
      > > > walk
      > > > > on it. I
      > > > > > don't need to know the bonding strength between
      > hydrogen
      > > and
      > > > oxygen
      > > > > atoms.
      > > > > > I just need to know enough to walk on the ice.
      I am
      > not
      > > > suggesting
      > > > > that we
      > > > > > should not investigate the physics of ice, but
      it
      > wont make
      > > a
      > > > > difference in
      > > > > > my life.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 3) With respect to "relationship between
      senses and
      > the
      > > > physical
      > > > > world, as
      > > > > > the relationship between classical [Newtonian]
      and
      > quantum
      > > > > physics.", my
      > > > > > point is that the two relationships are not of
      the
      > same
      > > > quality, so
      > > > > there is
      > > > > > no similarity.
      > > > >
      > > > > Ah, I understand your points but disagree with
      your
      > > conclusions,
      > > > > which is fine. Thanks for sharing your ideas. I
      enjoyed
      > (and
      > > will
      > > > > continue to enjoy) learning about them.
      > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > captain jack
      > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > From: daniel_needles
      [mailto:Daniel.Needles@C...]
      > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:45 PM
      > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out
      there
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Eduard Alf"
      <yeoman@v...>
      > wrote:
      > > > > > > Daniel,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > No. Although I would agree there is
      sensory
      > > limitations,
      > > > my
      > > > > point
      > > > > > is that we still have to use our neurons to
      > interpret the
      > > > signals
      > > > > > provided by our senses. Since it is an
      > interpretation
      > > and
      > > > not the
      > > > > > object itself that comes into our brains, and
      since
      > the
      > > art of
      > > > > > interpretation has to be learnt, then we cant
      see
      > reality
      > > as
      > > > it
      > > > > > actually is. We create what we "think" is
      the
      > object.
      > > For
      > > > an
      > > > > mature
      > > > > > adult this gets a close as we need for
      survival.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hm. I think I am missing your significance
      here
      > > somewhere.
      > > > But I
      > > > > > agree with your two statements.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1. Our conscious mind through our senses
      converts
      > an
      > > external
      > > > > > structure of parts and internalize it as a
      > structure of
      > > > thought
      > > > > where
      > > > > > the relationships remain the same but the
      parts are
      > > switched
      > > > from
      > > > > > physical to thought (these thought parts are
      > usually
      > > > > words/concepts.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 2. This process of copying structure is
      limited in
      > its
      > > > ability
      > > > > due to
      > > > > > a number things.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > The consequence that "this gets as close as
      we need
      > for
      > > > survival"
      > > > > > seems trivial to me. But I suspect I am
      missing
      > your main
      > > > point
      > > > > here.
      > > > > > (Sorry. 8~))
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > There is a is an old illusion that
      demonstrates
      > this.
      > > Draw
      > > > two
      > > > > > parallel lines each exactly an inch long.
      Put
      > arrows at
      > > the
      > > > ends
      > > > > of
      > > > > > each line. Make the arrows point inwards for
      one
      > line
      > > and
      > > > > outwards
      > > > > > for the other. The result is that the line
      which
      > has the
      > > > arrows
      > > > > > pointing outwards now appears longer. The
      reality
      > of the
      > > > lines is
      > > > > > that they are exactly the same length, but
      because
      > our
      > > > neurons are
      > > > > > making an interpretation, it appears that
      they are
      > > different.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Good example. This is #2 above correct?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > I'd make a minor modification. It is
      possible to
      > know
      > > it
      > > > all.
      > > > > > However,there is no way I can know if I know
      it
      > all. I
      > > have
      > > > no
      > > > > way to
      > > > > > know that the ice will break.>>
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Not knowing if you know it all, is the same
      thing
      > as
      > > not
      > > > being
      > > > > able
      > > > > > to know it all.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I can accept that as an definition under your
      > theory.
      > > > However,
      > > > > that
      > > > > > means you cannot distinguish between
      someone's
      > awareness
      > > and
      > > > their
      > > > > > potential awareness. That is, if they
      actually do
      > know it
      > > all
      > > > > > (potential awareness) but they cannot know it
      all
      > > (awareness)
      > > > > there
      > > > > > is no way to identify this using this
      defintion. It
      > gets
      > > > blurred
      > > > > with
      > > > > > the case that they don't know it all and they
      > cannot know
      > > it
      > > > all.
      > > > > > Pretty minor concern of mine though.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Even millenniums from now you will not know
      the
      > full
      > > > reality.
      > > > > You
      > > > > > may be know more ... but not it all. You
      will
      > still need
      > > to
      > > > > > interpret what you see.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > My comment of "so what" was not with
      respect to
      > whether
      > > > there
      > > > > will
      > > > > > be new discoveries. I am saying "so what"
      because
      > they
      > > do
      > > > not
      > > > > have
      > > > > > an impact on my daily life. Magnetism and
      > electricity is
      > > a
      > > > case
      > > > > in
      > > > > > point. If I have a magnet, I can pick up
      pins and
      > such.
      > > But
      > > > > > physicists say that this is due to an
      exchange of
      > > fundamental
      > > > > > particles. That is nice to know, but what is
      only
      > > necessary
      > > > for
      > > > > me
      > > > > > is that I can pick up a pin. If I am to
      develop a
      > > personal
      > > > > > philosophy, fundamental particles do not have
      a
      > place
      > > therein.
      > > > > > Again ... I am not saying that such
      knowledge is
      > > something
      > > > that
      > > > > is
      > > > > > of no value; it is just something that would
      not
      > help me
      > > in my
      > > > > > everyday life.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I'll have to think about this. You
      acknowledge my
      > point
      > > but
      > > > say
      > > > > it is
      > > > > > unimportnat. I am not following why under
      your
      > theory
      > > this is
      > > > > > unimportant in terms of determining reality.
      (I
      > think I
      > > am
      > > > missing
      > > > > > something fundemental in your perspective.
      Which
      > expands
      > > your
      > > > > > statement that structures are not only hard
      to
      > convey
      > > from
      > > > > physical
      > > > > > to the mind but between minds through the
      physical
      > (via
      > > > emails) as
      > > > > > well. 8~)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I do not agree that there is a relationship
      > between
      > > senses
      > > > and
      > > > > the
      > > > > > physical world, as the relationship between
      > classical
      > > > [Newtonian]
      > > > > and
      > > > > > quantum physics. Physical reality may
      determine
      > > the "truth",
      > > > but
      > > > > > both of these are outside the individual. We
      cant
      > know
      > > > physical
      > > > > > reality and thus not know the truth.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hmm. Please expound. I don't follow.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > captain jack
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > > From: daniel_needles
      > [mailto:Daniel.Needles@C...]
      > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:23 AM
      > > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re:
      Existentialism...?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >>No, I am not saying that a "part"
      > > > > > > >> defines reality. Reality [to maintain
      the
      > context
      > > of
      > > > the
      > > > > > > >> discussion] is composed of many
      parts. We
      > may be
      > > aware
      > > > > > > >> of a part or perhaps even many parts,
      but
      > that
      > > does
      > > > mean
      > > > > > > >> we can know all of the parts. That is
      what
      > I mean
      > > > > > > >> by the comment that we cant know
      > reality "fully".
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I think I got it. Yes I would agree with
      that.
      > Your
      > > > concept is
      > > > > > > that due to sensory limitations, etc some
      > aspects of
      > > > reality
      > > > > > > cannot be yet known or maybe not known at
      all.
      > I'd
      > > agree
      > > > with
      > > > > > that.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > (Did I read you right this time?)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >> I am not drawing a line as to what I
      want to
      > > > understand.
      > > > > > > >> What I am saying is that regardless
      of how
      > much I
      > > > want to
      > > > > > > >> understand, I cant know it all.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I'd make a minor modification. It is
      possible
      > to know
      > > it
      > > > all.
      > > > > > > However, there is no way I can know if I
      know
      > it all.
      > > I
      > > > have
      > > > > no
      > > > > > way
      > > > > > > to know that the ice will break.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > This is a supportable hypothesis by a
      simple
      > example
      > > of a
      > > > case
      > > > > > where
      > > > > > > the universe has an alternate truth but
      there
      > is no
      > > way I
      > > > can
      > > > > know
      > > > > > > it.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Imagine, milleniums from now even if I am
      able
      > to
      > > > determine
      > > > > all
      > > > > > that
      > > > > > > can be measured and experienced. Imagine
      also
      > there
      > > > exists an
      > > > > > > underlying truth that has no fingerprint
      in
      > reality
      > > or
      > > > > experience
      > > > > > > cannot be discovered by nature. Thus, if
      such a
      > > > fingerprint
      > > > > > exists,
      > > > > > > there is no way to "know" it.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > However, if the truth has a finger print
      then
      > it is
      > > > knowable.
      > > > > But
      > > > > > if
      > > > > > > we do find it we can never know that it
      is the
      > > ultimate
      > > > truth,
      > > > > > only
      > > > > > > that it is the ultimate truth we can
      measure
      > (for
      > > now.)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >>> I should comment on the Wheeler mind
      > experiment.
      > > > > > > >> My reaction is "so what".
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > A 100 years ago they said the same thing
      about
      > > magnetism
      > > > and
      > > > > > > electricity. Technology proliferation has
      a way
      > of
      > > > effecting
      > > > > > > everyones lives. Have you heard about
      Quantum
      > > computers?
      > > > > Project
      > > > > > > this technology into another 100 years.
      Things
      > may be
      > > > > different
      > > > > > then.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I see the relationship between senses and
      the
      > > physical
      > > > world
      > > > > as
      > > > > > being
      > > > > > > very similar to the realationship between
      > classical
      > > and
      > > > > quantum
      > > > > > > physics. Usually our senses match
      reality,
      > however
      > > there
      > > > are
      > > > > times
      > > > > > > when it doesn't match. However, it is
      physical
      > > reality
      > > > that
      > > > > > > determines the "truth." The same thing
      seems
      > to
      > > occur
      > > > with
      > > > > > Quantum
      > > > > > > mechanics.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > You are quite a thinker. Always a
      pleasure.
      > > > > > > Daniel
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have
      been
      > removed]
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our Home:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and
      more.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email
      to:
      > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      Yahoo!
      > Terms
      > > of
      > > > > Service.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
      removed]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > >
      > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      Yahoo!
      > Terms of
      > > > Service.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
      removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > >
      > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      Terms of
      > > Service.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
      of
      > Service.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 72 messages in this topic