Re: The forces inherent in energy

On Oct 13, 12:50 am, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<205e6528-83aa-4c5f-92d9-183279f87...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Joseph Humming <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Oct 12, 5:58 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<f680b129-666a-481e-98d3-c6f721415...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 Joseph Humming <jos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Preservation of eccentricity is a reasonable start. But I think if we
consider transgressing those boundaries, in essence moving towards a
transformative hermeneutics of quantum human actualization we might
eventuate the possibilities inculcated into pre-human matter by the
formative singularity, the so-called Big Bang.

Would you care to elaborate on this paragraph? Transgressing what
boundaries? What is a "transformative hermeneutics of quantum human
actualization"?

He's yanking your chain.

I thought he might be - but  didn't want to do him the discourtesy of
assuming so.

Several years ago a physicist used a computer program to generate text
that sounded like stuff commonly published in lit-crit magazines but was
utterly devoid of meaning. The editors of the magazine and many other
writers fawned all over it, raving about its deep insights and obvious
sophistication. The physicist then published what he had really done,
including the program he had written. The dupes fell into two camps:
some said they thought all along something was fishy about the article
and others said they didn't believe that the program had written it.

Joseph, I'm sure I'm not the only one who read your first post and
thought, "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm also sure
I'm not the only one who read your response to this fluffery and had his
suspicions confirmed.

And what does "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" mean?

Which part did you not understand?

This guy - me - doesn't claim to know anything about the minutiae of
particle physics etc. But I'm not talking about such things. I'm
trying to get a bead on the nature of existence. You guys - presuming
YOU know what you're talking about - have uncovered the various forces
and energies that underpin the universe. I don't understand the
technicalities and the math of such things. I just take their
existence for granted. But there must be considerable space beyond
these technicalities:

Well, that's what gets you into trouble. You can't be bothered to learn
the simple high-school stuff that physicists are talking about, and you
try to sweep your lack of understanding under the carpet by trivializing
it as "technicalities". But the title of the thread attracts anyone with
an interest in physics and they, naturally, answer your questions in
that semantic space ... partly by explaining that the questions you pose
don't make any sense.

I don't agree with that last statement. Probably I wouldn't, would I?
I accept the laws of physics in their totality - but it is surely
bizarre to suggest that all reflection and all effort to draw
conclusions from these laws is barred. The particles that form matter
do their own thing. We may do our thing - which is to see how we may
best find value for ourselves in the universe the particles create.

implications about the nature of existence, for
example. The scientist will be very careful about definitions etc.
There must be room for someone else to build on the scientist's work.
I'm not talking about mystical speculation here.I'm talking about
implications that may be drawn from the work of science.

I don't understand the intent of the sentence "There must be room for
someone else to build on the scientist's work." It could be taken to
reinforce the previous sentence, for the only way that anyone can build
upon previous work is to accurately understand it, or it could be taken
to try to contradict it, in that scientists' careful use of words may
make it impossible for someone with looser requirements of diction to
use that work to his philosophical ends.

"Building on the scientists' work" could mean either adding to the sum
of knowledge that the scientists have already discovered or drawing
implications from these discoveries. In the context of these postings
it clearly means the latter.

It turns out it may mean the first thing, for you deny mysticism and you
want to draw implications....

In this
regard, while most modern and post-modern speculation insists on the
chance or arbitrary nature of existence etc I seek to establish - or
at least assert - that the energy that is the cause, or the source, of
everything is not at all arbitrary.

Oh, so you're a philosopher trying to make use of the terminology of
physics to say things that feel good without necessarily understanding
the words you're using.

What's a philosopher? Do you have to be employed by a philosophy dept.
to be a philosopher? The only question that's of any value here is
whether what I am saying adds to the human sum of understanding of our
place on the planet or in the cosmos as a whole. You haven't addressed
that once - so far.

You appear to be saying that although particle interactions are governed
by rules of probability, the energy that mediates those interactions is
not. Well, I've got unhappy news for you. Particles are inseparable from
their energetic interactions. For instance, mass is defined by how much
gravitational force it generates; electrical charge is defined by how
much electrical and magnetic force it generates. Without an
understanding of the forces that define how particles work, you have no
understanding of the particles.

I'm not saying a single one of these things. What I am saying is made
clear in my 9-25 posting last night.- to the effect that human history
is a gradual working out of human potential. The only relevance of all
this science-discourse to that statement is my claim that the course
of the universe to date bears witness to the same expression of
potential - from energy to the universe, to matter, to the cosmos as
we know it, to life, to intelligent life...In so saying I hope to add
directionality and a context to our efforts. If this constitutes "nice
things" so be it.

Your best course of action now is to get yourself a high school textbook
on physics and learn its contents. Alternatively, read a book on the
subject, such as Cal Tech professor Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces."

And then you should read his book, "Six not-so-Easy Pieces."

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 253)
    ... This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics ... particles using some math called "triality", ... Standard Model, together with gravity. ... makes the Lie algebra suinto a Lie subalgebra of so. ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 277)
    ... This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics ... When the wiggles are waves that are moving along, ... steps are called "particles". ... For example, the atoms may have an angular momentum, ...
    (sci.math.research)
  • Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
    ... etc. "Dressing" transformation a la Greenberg and Schweber ... describes real particles interacting via instantaneous ... > non-covariant gauge and if you change ... That's all we need to do physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... However, doing that does not automatically impart quality, ... little massive particles or a material fluid impinging on objects, ... phenomena from modern physics. ... concerning a physical phenomenon so as to enable mental visualization ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Binding Energy Question
    ... Physics is magick. ... oscillating energy. ... inertia of moving particles. ... interfere with itself in the double slit experiment? ...
    (sci.physics)