m.a. wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brent Meeker" <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
>
>
>
>> m.a. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Flammarion" <peterdjo....domain.name.hidden>
>>>>>> To: "Everything List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." <marty....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the ocean of virtual particles which may give
>>>>>>>> rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between matter and
>>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see no reason to believe that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be most interested in your view of vacuum fluctuations of
>>>>>> virtual
>>>>>> particles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why would they differ from what he WP article says?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Brent Meeker's interpretation of the WP article seems to agree with my
>>>> description.that virtual particles might not exist, does not establish
>>>> that
>>>>
>>> there is some immaterial thing that does exist. If they don't exist, how
>>> can they produce real particles?
>>>
>
>
>
>> Who said virtual particles produce real particles. They are
>> computational terms in perturbation expansions. Whether vacuum
>> fluctuations exist is less clear, but all theories point to the total
>> energy of the universe being zero, the positive energy of matter being
>> just balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity - which would
>> imply that particles and the rest of the universe can come out of nothing.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Brent, I apologize for misrepresenting your position but I don't see where
> it undermines mine. I
> said that virtual particles exist between matter and thought. You say they
> are "computational terms" and the rest of the universe came out of nothing.
> Perhaps I should just have said that they are pure thought...as are
> computational terms. No?
>
So does being "pure thought" mean "without a reference", i.e. a
fiction? As in "Sherlock Holmes" is a pure thought?
Brent
> marty a.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Sat Sep 19 2009 - 17:49:58 PDT