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

Re: [existlist] if a tree falls and I dont see it happen

Expand Messages
  • George Walton
    Ed, I wouldn t worry about whether or not you can hear the tree fall, okay? But, if one falls, hits you on the head and you don t feel it, that might be cause
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ed,

      I wouldn't worry about whether or not you can hear the
      tree fall, okay? But, if one falls, hits you on the
      head and you don't feel it, that might be cause for
      considerable more concern. In other words, it might
      have killed you.

      Let me know if that happens, okay?

      Biggie



      --- eduard <yeoman@...> wrote:
      > elbookdoc,
      >
      > Yes, I can understand that point of view. Things
      > that I dont see happen are not part of my
      > immediate world and I suppose that if dont see
      > some eventual evidence of a tree falling [wood
      > flooring, paper pages of my book, etc..] , then I
      > might think that it never happened. But doesn't
      > that create a certain difficulty?? Surely there
      > are a lot of things that you dont see happen, and
      > yet are of importance to one's well being.
      >
      > Thankyou for your explanation of "troat" ...
      >
      > eduard
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: elbookdoc [mailto:thebookdoc@...]
      > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 4:45 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: troat experiment
      >
      >
      > > I would presume from your little comment, that
      > you
      > > believe that trees never fall, because no one is
      > > around to see it happen.
      >
      > What I would imagine is that to me it would never
      > really matter or
      > become material in my world. It doesn't matter.
      > The things that do
      > are those things that become part of my
      > perception. If I have no
      > perception whatever of an event, it might as well
      > not have happened.
      > That can be a direct, indirect or intellectual
      > perception.
      >
      > If something is never perceived, it is conceivable
      > that it never
      > happened.
      >
      > > p.s. What is a "troat"??
      >
      > Brooklynese for throat.
      >
      > "Wash dicar wal I slit dis gouy's troat."
      >
      > Little Imagination
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > 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
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
      http://finance.yahoo.com
    • eduard
      George, I will definitely take that to heart. I am almost finished my book. John Gibbon, is now speaking of alternate universes. In other words the cat, in
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 4, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        George,

        I will definitely take that to heart.

        I am almost finished my book. John Gibbon, is now
        speaking of alternate universes. In other words
        the cat, in the box is both dead and alive and
        each occurs in an alternate universe. Every
        decision point branches to another universe which
        once created will exist at the same time, but
        those which are not ours, are unknown to us.
        Gibbon is referring to a paper by Everett that was
        [at the time] supported by Wheeler. Although this
        seems to resolve the difficulty of the two slit
        experiment, it creates a lot of metaphysical
        baggage which perhaps is even more difficult. In
        effect, it is saying that, in our universe, the
        electron goes through one hole and some observer
        in another universe sees it going through the
        other hole. The wave function does not collapse
        but simply presents the choice of the particle to
        each universe. In this manner the particle does
        not need to "know" of the two holes, in the sense
        that it makes a unique choice. It makes both
        choices and each carries on its own universe. You
        can see how this results in a greater difficulty
        of visualization. After the electron makes its
        particular choice, the observer may either switch
        the experiment off or leave it on. Or he could
        put on his red tie or blue tie. Or he could walk
        out of the building or go to the cafeteria. The
        number of universes to accommodate all these
        choices and branching is mind boggling ...

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: George Walton
        [mailto:iambiguously@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:26 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [existlist] if a tree falls and I
        dont see it happen


        Ed,

        I wouldn't worry about whether or not you can hear
        the
        tree fall, okay? But, if one falls, hits you on
        the
        head and you don't feel it, that might be cause
        for
        considerable more concern. In other words, it
        might
        have killed you.

        Let me know if that happens, okay?

        Biggie
      • elbookdoc
        We ll not get back to clams for this diatribe, but I believe that flies will do. Say there is a man who needs to change his oil. He is a bit hung over and
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          We'll not get back to clams for this diatribe, but I believe that
          flies will do.

          Say there is a man who needs to change his oil. He is a bit hung over
          and perhaps irritable as this is not a thing that he'd really wanted
          to do in this state and to get the beer to sooth the ache, he needs
          to have the car -- whose which he'd set to drain. To make matters
          worse, the heat is hot and the wind is still and he smells from not
          showering, catching the attention of a fly.

          The fly hovers in craft above the fellow as he is about to pour, like
          flys do. The fellow puts down the oil to shush the fly and, done
          shushing, reaches for the oil quart...laying his hands on another,
          not the original open one. He snaps the new top thinking he'd done it
          already and starts to pour. He refuses to stop this time as the fly
          has at him. Waving hands wildly he trashes the original quart, which
          floods the driveway in its excrement -- so to speak. The fellow
          continues to pour as the puddle of oil seems to grow, thinking to
          himself he'll replace the quart he spilled when he gets to the quick-
          n-go. He was one quart short to start with and figured what he had
          would get him there, he'd get some beer and oil and be back.

          Done pouring, the fellow forgets about the fly which has gone away.
          He hops in the car and starts to drive off...leaving a small trail of
          oil, and almost 3 entire quarts of oil in a puddle on the driveway,
          as he forgot to put the plug back in the pan. A few minutes down the
          road, the engine siezes. Cars pile up in a waiting stream behind, and
          tempers rise. Some cross the double yellow to pass. On one of these
          cars, a bicycle improperly strapped to the rack falls to the side of
          the road and is damaged. The father circles the car back and picks up
          the bike, and decides to haul it right then to the bike shop so as
          not to ruin the plans for the afternoon.

          At the bike shop, the mechanic who sets to work on the bike is a bit
          of a perfectionist. He's straightened what was bent and goes through
          a few pains to touch up the paint. It only takes a few moments more.
          He's got an appointment with a realtor to look at a new appartment
          that is only a few minutes from the shop. He'll be a few minutes
          late, but no big deal. He checks out the family and sends them on
          their way, then hops in his car and bounds off. He was going to take
          his bike, but, being late already, he decided not to push his luck
          with the realtor.

          He sees the apartment and likes it. He puts in a down-payment. On the
          way back from the apartment, he makes a wrong turn. He honks his horn
          at an old woman who seems to be pulling out of her driveway without
          stopping to look. She hears the horn and stops. She curses youth,
          takes a moment to calm down, then slowly starts on her way again. A
          few moments later she kills a young father at an intersection by
          running a light that she thought she would make.

          Before I go on, let me point out that this is not at all where this
          story ends. But I end it here.

          What caused the death?

          The woman never saw the fly. The fellow in the shop never saw the
          fly. The fellow who brought his bike to the shop never saw the fly.
          The dead fellow never saw the fly. The fellow whose car engine has
          seized has forgotten the fly.

          In essence the idea of the fly does not matter, but the fly, for me,
          symbolizes quantum mechanics. It is a random behavior which sets off
          a stream of behaviors, which, by chance can be said to manifest into
          something else. It is not predictable as to whether the fly caused
          the death, as there are many points where the events might have
          happened in a similar way. For example, the fly may not have bothered
          the fellow while he changed his oil, yet because he arived on time to
          the meeting with the realtor, the realtor was more chatty and
          personable, and the two spent longer discussing the apartment and
          other interests, yet the fellow still managed to leave to get back to
          work at exactly the same time, still encountering the woman with a
          honk of the horn, still resulting in the death of the young father.

          What I also find interesting here is that many things might have
          happened anyway. The car may have seized had the plug gone in the pan
          and the oil been retained -- regardless of the fly. The bike may have
          fallen from the car necessitating the trip to the shop because it was
          poorly tied. The fellow from the shop might have passed the woman in
          many different series of events (e.g., being on-time and on his bike,
          he took the wrong turn and delayed her by riding behind and shouting,
          rather than using the horn). The woman, not distracted by the horn
          may have though of something she forgot, then felt it unimportant and
          continued on. The fellow that died might have cut himself shaving and
          in taking just 5 seconds to dab on a bit of tissue may have saved
          himself from his early fate -- or created a different one that
          occurred at the same time for some other reason. And at any point
          some other variable might be introduced to change the series of
          events.

          There are decisions that effect the outcome as well as calculations,
          and both are not always critical. Observation matters (woman hears
          horn), previous outcomes matter (fellow drinks the night before), and
          the cycle does not end, while new events appear. Everything effects
          everything else to a greater or lesser extent as the timeline moves
          forward. And should the young father turn out to be the fellow whose
          car had seized, coming back from where he'd already accepted a rental
          car, events can effectively lie dormant to affect later, larger
          changes. And can do so unpredictably.

          There is both no reason to assume the result is predictable, and no
          reason to assume it is not probable (depending on the nature and
          complexity of behaviors). There is also no reason to assume
          calculations are not just dumb luck and a decent approximation of a
          probable result. To say one knows what happens is a lie.

          It is following the exceptions that give clues to actual, rather than
          probable, behaviors and outcomes. Yet, even following these, you can
          never know.

          Sails Untied
          --------------------------------------------
        • eduard
          elbookdoc,
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            elbookdoc,

            << In essence the idea of the fly does not matter,
            but the fly, for me, symbolizes quantum mechanics.
            It is a random behavior which sets off a stream of
            behaviors, which, by chance can be said to
            manifest into something else >>

            If the fly is representative of quantum mechanics,
            then it itself is a probability function. It can
            be any number of possibilities, from a live fly to
            a dead fly, to the fly that is caught in a spiders
            web. The man who is changing oil, collapses the
            function such as to create the single fly that
            distracts his attention. The point made by John
            Gibbon is that this single fly is that known in
            our universe, along with all the subsequent events
            that cascade from that encounter in the driveway.
            The other states of this fly carry on in other
            universes. Perhaps in the universe in which the
            fly is caught in a spider's web, the oil changer
            is not distracted, and his car does not stop, such
            that he runs down the old lady and thus saves the
            father who goes on to write a text book on
            Existentialism.

            eduard
          • elbookdoc
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              << The point made by John
              > Gibbon is that this single fly is that known in
              > our universe, along with all the subsequent events
              > that cascade from that encounter in the driveway.

              I don't mean to be cocky, but I somehow knew what I was going
              to say as soon as you responded and that it would affect exactly
              this:

              The fellow who had been drinking was a heavy, habitual drinker.
              He was prone to delirium. The fly was not real.

              Now you'll tell me it doesn't make a difference.

              I have a little trouble with the idea that all possible events *exist*,
              and that there are multiple universi (?) necessarily. Isn't that
              POTENTIAL that exists, rather than necessarily assuming other
              universes do? A pretty grand assumption -- especially for one
              like yourself (missouri be damned). I would be all with you if you
              were discussing perspective (each individual perspective is a
              universe), but to 'collapse' things: If the universe is not observed
              (or imagined), does it make a sound?

              Your perspective on Gibbon makes him sound like a duck.

              P. Littlebrain
              ----------------------------------------------------
            • eduard
              elbookdoc, Yes, I have the
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 6, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                elbookdoc,

                << I have a little trouble with the idea that all
                possible events *exist*, and that there are
                multiple universi (?) necessarily. >>

                Yes, I have the same problem with the idea that
                there are multiple universes. It seems much to
                complex. But then it seems to provide an answer to
                the difficulty of dealing with the superposition
                of states. I suspect, however, that it has it has
                a certain attraction because it matches the
                mathematics. Actually, this whole thing is well
                beyond me and I guess I shall have to read some
                more books.

                I am now into a book, "God and the New Physics" by
                Paul Davies. What struck me whilst reading it
                last night, was the idea that the within the
                present universe, there is an inherent tendency
                for localized order out of the surrounding chaos.
                I don't have a specific quote, as this is more in
                the way of an impression I obtain in the reading.
                Although the universe, in general, tends towards
                overall chaos [high entropy], the formation of
                stars, galaxies, and life itself is towards order
                [low entropy]. I recall reading about the
                philosophical/religious outlook of the ancient
                Sumerians. In that they initiated the dualist
                idea of good and evil which I would put in terms
                of order and chaos respectively. The Egyptians
                had the same sort of outlook, with the pharaoh
                being the protector of society against chaos.
                From there one could develop a personal philosophy
                based upon our purpose as being to maintain and
                propagate order. This seems more pleasing than a
                simple purpose of propagating ourselves, as
                humans, through reproduction and such. Perhaps
                one could also look at it from an Existentialist
                viewpoint in that our choices produce ever
                increasing order. It fits as well with the idea
                that our choices are made for everyone.

                << Your perspective on Gibbon makes him sound like
                a duck.>>

                I don't understand this last comment.

                eduard
              • elbookdoc
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  << Your perspective on Gibbon makes him sound like
                  > a duck.>>
                  >
                  > I don't understand this last comment.>>

                  Ducks go Quack.

                  Mr. Mallard
                  --------------------------
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.