Thanks. I look forward to listening when I get a free several minutes.

==================================================
Kip S. Thorne: kip@...
350-17 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
Phone: +1 626 395-4598; Fax: +1 626 796-5675

Administrative Assistant --
JoAnn Boyd: joann@...; +1 626 395-4280
==================================================

> On Jul 9, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Donovan Rundle <donovanrundle@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much! Level of detail is ideal for me.
>
> My sense of what you explain is that the strength of fluctuations for “things” over a certain size, while qualitatively belonging in the set to which the maths (including the Heisenberg component) would apply for Higgs, etc, would, for some purposes, express “negligibility.” I will look into what is fluctuating so as to better understand your reply.
>
> It’s of interest to me that a determinist like Spinoza would refer to all events after the “ontological totality” (which shhh…. does fall within human experience, hence part of a radical empiricist outlook) as “accidents.” I’ll have to get out my Latin dictionary and translate that correspondence for myself. Elwes is the best IMO, but this seems, well, interesting.
>
> You are rightly named to the Feynmann chair (I’ve read QED and a couple of his books for “us.” You can talk to people.) I have a couple of pieces here, and most of the scientists over there at Cal Tech did fancy my musical noodles a bit. The solo flute piece is called “the Calling.” The piano piece, “Movement Invisible.”
>
> <Flute Solo rough.mp3>
>
> <Movement Invisible rough.mp3>
>
>
> Thanks again. I’m thrilled that you seemed to attend to and understand my attempt to express something, and to in turn comment so concisely and on topic. The music pieces are short…like popular songs.
>
> Namaste,
> Donovan Rundle
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Kip S Thorne <kip@...> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I can’t respond in detail, but: It is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that controls what objects exhibit quantum fluctuations and what do not. From that principle one sees that the strength of the fluctuations is inversely proportional to the object’s mass; so heavy things like people have negligible fluctuations, while light things like the Higgs boson have large fluctuations
>>
>>
>> ==================================================
>> Kip S. Thorne: kip@...
>> 350-17 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
>> Phone: +1 626 395-4598; Fax: +1 626 796-5675
>>
>> Administrative Assistant --
>> JoAnn Boyd: joann@...; +1 626 395-4280
>> ==================================================
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2015, at 12:30 AM, Donovan Rundle <donovanrundle@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I used to play piano at Cal Tech Associates parties when Gordy was with us and President of the Associates.
>>>
>>> I’ve recently discovered a notion in my mind that seems to want help from a theoretical physicist. I don’t see that the motions of large bodies are not statistically ascertained any more or less than subatomic particles are in Quantuum Electro-Dynamics. I did read Feynman’s book of lectures at UCLA. It seems that the calculations for big stuff would tend to obscure relatively ultra tiny “accidents.”
>>>
>>> What is the “quality” of thingness that makes the moon an “easy” target and a Higgs boson not so much? Is mass a conceivable continuum, albeit not necessarily an easy thing to plot? But “thingness” is ultimately only the totality, with the “rest” mere lower level actors.
>>>
>>> If there was a way to begin from this total mass, rather than trying to patch the quantum and macro together, and see how “God is playing dice” with the whole dependent origination, big and small, of an omniverse in which attributes other than matter and mind are influencing our universe in some statistically measurable way, what kind of machines would be needed to compute this after detecting it? The whole shootin’ match must be a dice game, I say.
>>>
>>> Sorry, this must seem childish, but I had this strange experience that it was all one, and yet all motion within could be called “accidental” owing to the absolute complexity of this dependent origination, which nevertheless seems as if it could be represented by some schema of notation showing proportions of mass and energy “everywhere.” A never-ending construction job…we contractors were always working ourselves toward unemployment…perhaps this is why is I dream this way.
>>>
>>> I was a poet in high school, top English scholar in a major metropolitan public school, but got shot to pieces during a riot in my first quarter at Cal. I never recovered really but got through existential life and now am bothering important people with my insistent “experiences” telling me that a scale of almost unimaginable scope could show quantum phenomena among large bodies, which are made of the same subatomic stuff, in that manner of speaking about “reality.” So, it’s all accident as much as it is deterministic? Smash that logic, eh...
>>>
>>> Sign me , Spinoza’s Squire