>
> I'm not sure of the details of your experiments, but wouldn't the most
> direct way to prove what you are saying be to isolate just
> that physical process
> which cannot be modelled? For example, if it is EM fields, set up an
> appropriately
> brain-like configuration of EM fields, introduce some environmental input,
> then
> show that the response of the fields deviates from what Maxwell's
> equations
> would predict.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
I don't expect any deviation from Maxwell's equations. There's nothing
wrong with them. It's just that they are merely a very good representation
of a surface behaviour of the perceived universe in a particular context.
Just like QM. But it's only the surface. The universe is not made of EM or
QM or atoms or space. All these things are appearances. and it's what they
are all actually made of with is what delivers its appearances.
It's a pretty simple idea and it's been around for 300 years (and it's not
a substance dualism!). The paper I'm writing at the moment (nearly
finished) is about how this cultural delusion that the universe is made of
our models pervades the low-level physical science. It's quite stark...the
application of situated cognition to knowledge is quite pervasive. You can
take a vertical slice all the way through the entire epistemological tree
from social sciences down through psychology..cognitive
science..ecology..ethology..anthropology ||
neuroscience...chemistry..physics. The || is the sudden break where
situated cognition matters and where physics, in particular cosmology is
almost pathologically intent on the surgical excision of the scientist
from the universe. Situated cognition applied to metascience at the level
of physics is simply absent.
You can see it in the desperate drive to make sense of QM maths, as if the
universe is made of it...that the only way that any sense can be made of
it is to write complex stories about infinite numbers of universes, all of
which are somehow explanatory of the weirdness of the maths, rather then
deal with what the universe is actually made of....when right in front of
all of them is the perfect way out...start talking about what universes
must be made of in order that it can omplement scientists that have
perception....to realise that the maths of empirical laws is just a model
of the stuff, not the stuff.
Cosmologists are the key. They have some sort of mass fantasy going about
the mathematics they use. Totally unfounded assumptions pervade their
craft - far worse than any assumption that the universe is not made of
idealsised maths...the thing that gets labeled erroneously 'metaphysics'
and eschewed.
I have done a cartoon representation of a cosmologist made of stuff in a
unoiverse of stuff staring at the cosmos wondering where all teh stuff is,
when the fact of be able to stare _at all_ is telling him about the deep
nature of of the cosmos. Poor little deluded cosmologist.
There's nothing wrong with Maxwell's equations. In fact there's nothing
wrong with any empirical laws. The problem is us...
cheers,
colin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Dec 17 2006 - 15:17:41 PST