----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Meeker" <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
>
> 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
I feel I may still have an argument but lack the philo-physical "chops" to
make it, so I'll stifle here.
>
>> 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 Sun Sep 20 2009 - 09:43:09 PDT