epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory

[Arising_uk]

...
I don't care what someone is prepared to say, and what he, she, or it "might" say if they actually said something. Obama might be prepared to admit that he's a Kenyan-born Muslim living in the U.S. under badly-forged paperwork and stupidly (Republican) granted permission slips. ...

Once again with this fucking nonsense. What a little-minded racist you are. What gets your goat most, that he is half-white and a white women slept with an African man or that a black man is president.

From the white house itself, although why they have to do this to satisfy racist half-wits is beyond me but just goes to show that America is far from its opinion of itself as a 'melting pot'.

Obamas Birth certificate

Now unless the Yank has given Hawaii back to the Polynesians this makes him American, as I presume does his mother being a white American and presumably a godbothering christian to boot as there appears to be a preponderance of these over there. But who knows? As I wouldn't be surprised if patriarchy still ruled in this matter over there.

As Gee pointed out, if there was the slightest shred of evidence that Obama was not American the looney right would have produced it but all we hear is a deafening silence interspersed by racist nutters claiming conspiracy.

[NielsBohr]

+1

[Greylorn Ell]

...
I don't care what someone is prepared to say, and what he, she, or it "might" say if they actually said something. Obama might be prepared to admit that he's a Kenyan-born Muslim living in the U.S. under badly-forged paperwork and stupidly (Republican) granted permission slips. ...

Once again with this fucking nonsense. What a little-minded racist you are. What gets your goat most, that he is half-white and a white women slept with an African man or that a black man is president.

From the white house itself, although why they have to do this to satisfy racist half-wits is beyond me but just goes to show that America is far from its opinion of itself as a 'melting pot'.

Obamas Birth certificate

Now unless the Yank has given Hawaii back to the Polynesians this makes him American, as I presume does his mother being a white American and presumably a godbothering christian to boot as there appears to be a preponderance of these over there. But who knows? As I wouldn't be surprised if patriarchy still ruled in this matter over there.

As Gee pointed out, if there was the slightest shred of evidence that Obama was not American the looney right would have produced it but all we hear is a deafening silence interspersed by racist nutters claiming conspiracy.

AUK,
Last time we started to deal with this you wrote that you did not care and did not want any further feedback on the issue. I had a pair of relevant certificates lined up, one ligitimate4, another one, Obama's. Anyone with a two-digit IQ could discern the egregious discrepancies in B.O.'s fabricated birth certificate, except pinheads like (Looking out for you!) Bill O'Reilly, who can''t even look down and see his pecker anymore.

I did not pursue the topic, since it is no fun talking to a brick. (Which rhymes with...? limerick, quick, crick, trick... keep working on it.) Now the brick wants to comment, thinking it to its advantage because it had neutralized the previous conversation by opting out of it. That's exactly the kind of autonomic brain processes that substitute in the "minds" of bricks for actual thought,

First off, I'm hardly a racist. My very first heavy duty teenage fight, me against one big dude backed up by four of his friends, would have left me a bloody mess-- except while the fight was getting started, about midnight on a snow covered street on the outskirts of Green Bay, Wisconsin, a car pulled up. Three guys came out, one of them a big black guy. I'd never met a black man before in my life, and assumed the worst. (As I subsequently learned, he was part of the only black family in Green Bay, the first of many more, thanks to the colorblind football coach, Vincent Lombardi.) I confronted him as if he was yet another enemy, and I was really pissed.

He said simply, "Fight the guy wanting it. Whatever happens, anybody else comes after you, comes through me." He was true to his word.

He didn't have any sisters, but while I was in that town I was the only white guy to date American Indian women, despite prejudice. Lost the one I fell in love with because her racist father would not allow her to date whites. Angry man, no doubt with reason.

Since then I've dated three blacks, two American Indians, three Chinese ladies, and married a Filippina. They were all good people, and no different from whites. Their agendas and mine did not coincide for the long term.

I once hired a black guy, who took the first opportunity that I gave him to steal $1000 from me. Another white guy I hired for the same job stole $2000. The black guy at least had the integrity to look me in the eye and admit his theft, paying me $100 back before disappearing.

I don't like Obama because he's a filthy liar who goes golfing during times when leadership would be helpful. I don't like him because he is clearly a Muslim and a socialist who is determined to destroy the U.S.A., and is but a few ticks away from doing so. Obama himself is simply a facade, an in-agreement spokesman for powerful forces determined to create worldwide socialism, from which they can profit. (c.f. George Soros) Obama is a stupid, egocentric man more concerned with himself than anything in the world or the universe, a quintessential narcissist.

I am certain that if Soros fails to accomplish his goal by political means, Obama's advisers will arrange for a "National Emergency" just before the elections of 2016. This will allow B.O. to engage the dictatorial principles he has already signed into "law" via "Executive Orders," including national martial law and government confiscation of all firearms, and all property. Much like the Bolshevics did in pre-Stalinist Russia.

Unlike you, AUK, I pay attention to details while you are happy with your skinny head stuck up your fat ass, glimpsing the world as best you can through your lucite navel. Obama plays the race card whenever someone criticizes him. You play the same card in his behalf, so we know your political philosophy-- camp follower, knee-jerk socialist.

Here's mine: I'd detest that lying little asshole if she was golfing in Sarah Palin's body, especially if she was white, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, or Theodore Roosevelt.

Whatever complaints you may have about me, do not try to label me a racist, you sniveling little socialist pinhead.

Greylorn

[uwot]

Dark energy is thought to comprise 75% of the entire universe, and we only discovered it about 15 years ago.

What you have to bear in mind is that we haven't discovered dark energy in any ontological/material sense; we have discovered that the red shift of galaxies suggests that the rate of recession is accelerating. In other words, we have discovered a phenomenon, something that the universe does that we were hitherto unaware of and that we cannot explain by any causal mechanism. Something is making it happen, that something is labelled 'dark energy', but we don't know what it is.
The same is true of gravity and in fact all fundamental forces. In every case there is a measurable effect, but there is no concensus about the cause. (We know that forces are carried by 'particles', but that should not be confused with them 'causing' the force. Saying that something will move another, because it is charged, is not the same as explaining how charge moves things.)
The way that physics works is to observe and verify a phenomenon, measure the events very carefully, attribute an abstract 'force' to what demonstrably happens and see if anything follows logically/mathematically, then see whether the universe can be shown to behave according to the predictions.

My "raw energy" notion came in a purely theoretical manner-- like someone who had never heard of "elephant" wandering through a jungle and finding a large destroyed baobab tree surrounded by seriously trampled plants and huge footprints, then extrapolating on the question, "What might the beast who did this look like?"

Right. So what are the footprints that you have discovered?

My "raw energy" concept was a theoretical necessity, derived from my extension of the experimental reality that events in this universe require the interaction of at least two opposing forces,

Well, that's your extension of something that isn't true. Gravity doesn't work on opposing forces, nor does dark energy as far as we can tell. The idea of opposing forces is more tenable with regard to electromagnetism, because we think in terms of positive and negative charges. Again, this is just labelling, the 'experimental reality' is that some particles move one way in a 'field', others go the opposite way.

a logical extension of Newton's Third Law of motion, and, given the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, an absolute requirement for a created universe.

What do you mean by 'created'?

At that point I'd not grasped the elephant's tail or even tripped over a turd, but I knew that something with the properties my theory required was out there.

Until we know what dark energy is, anyone can attribute any old ad hoc qualities or causes to it and, given 'some consideration time', claim it as evidence for whatever they happen to believe. What you have is still just a metaphysical story that you can mold to whatever experimental results are discovered.

I failed to pursue the theoretical questions in depth. I'd invented my little "raw energy" notion, but had not pursued its implications... Had it done so, that would have been of no point, since there was not even a pop-sci journal that would have published a physics theory derived from theological considerations. As is the case today.

Quite right too. The problem with any 'spiritual' or 'mental' entity is that you can ascribe absolutely any power, or force to it. No known theological consideration explains any demonstrable, repeatable phenomenon that science cannot at least investigate.

This was a lot of work to quibble with your comment, "If that isn't what you originally invoked raw energy for, they are not the same thing." You are mistaken. The thing, dark energy, is what it is.

Well, as I said, until we know what it is (other than the cause of acceleration), it can be whatever anyone wants it to be.

My early understanding of it remains valid (and limited), and my purpose in deriving that understanding is irrelevant. (If I was lost in the jungle looking for an outhouse, following the scent of shit, and discovered an elephant along the way, so what if I bumped into the elephant while looking for an outhouse? Roentgen's discovery of x-rays was not invalidated because he found evidence of them by accident.)

No indeed. The history of science is a catalogue of lucky guesses and freak events at least as much as it is of rigour. I've said several times that Feyerabend pretty well nailed it, in my opinion.

Your statement would be correct if, and only if, dark energy did not have the properties I had hypothesized, and was therefore irrelevant to Beon Theory.

Until you demonstrate that dark energy does have the qualities your theory predicts, my statement can be assumed to be correct. It is for you to prove otherwise.

As it happens, my correct hypothesis about one property of "raw" energy, plus the experimental observations behind dark energy, are sufficient to explain its behavior. Pissed at myself for not predicting the observations.

The only observable property that dark energy has currently is the accelerating expansion. If that is the "one property of "raw" energy" you predicted, can you point to anything you wrote prior to the discovery of dark energy that supports that claim?

Moving on, next step is to discover additional properties of dark energy. Found one related to elasticity last week, but have yet to take it anywhere.

Elasticity of what? What observation are you refering to?

Wish that I'd not let my limited math skills slip, and that the physicists I worked with are dead. Alas.

It is a shame that people we admire and love have to die, but it is not essential to have the mathematical skills: if you can predict a phenomenon, before it is observed, that is then observed, people would be a lot more interested. Unfortunately, there are no prizes for predicting things that don't happen. Nor for things we already know about.

[Arising_uk]

AUK,
Last time we started to deal with this you wrote that you did not care and did not want any further feedback on the issue. ...

Show me where I said this?

I had a pair of relevant certificates lined up, one ligitimate4, another one, Obama's. Anyone with a two-digit IQ could discern the egregious discrepancies in B.O.'s fabricated birth certificate, except pinheads like (Looking out for you!) Bill O'Reilly, who can''t even look down and see his pecker anymore.

They why haven't you given them to the Tea Party as this would mean he is not eligible to be the President.

Tell you what, post your evidence here and let us see if what you say is true.

First off, I'm hardly a racist. ...

My apologies then, a religious bigot it is.

I don't like Obama because he's a filthy liar who goes golfing during times when leadership would be helpful. ...

Is this it? Where has he lied but given the history of American presidents I hardly think this a disqualification.

I don't like him because he is clearly a Muslim ...

And you base this 'fact' upon what evidence?

and a socialist who is determined to destroy the U.S.A., and is but a few ticks away from doing so. ...

Of course he is.

Obama himself is simply a facade, an in-agreement spokesman for powerful forces determined to create worldwide socialism, from which they can profit. (c.f. George Soros) Obama is a stupid, egocentric man more concerned with himself than anything in the world or the universe, a quintessential narcissist.

Which of your presidents hasn't been? Soros - 'worldwide socialism', lmfao! You're living in the past and its an imaginary one at that.

I am certain that if Soros fails to accomplish his goal by political means, Obama's advisers will arrange for a "National Emergency" just before the elections of 2016. This will allow B.O. to engage the dictatorial principles he has already signed into "law" via "Executive Orders," including national martial law and government confiscation of all firearms, and all property. Much like the Bolshevics did in pre-Stalinist Russia.

Kinda of like Bush's 9/11 National Emergency then? You live in a fantasy world of conspiracy.

Unlike you, AUK, I pay attention to details while you are happy with your skinny head stuck up your fat ass, glimpsing the world as best you can through your lucite navel. Obama plays the race card whenever someone criticizes him. You play the same card in his behalf, so we know your political philosophy-- camp follower, knee-jerk socialist.

Dream on. What I'm not is a card-carrying conspiracy loon.

Whatever complaints you may have about me, do not try to label me a racist, you sniveling little socialist pinhead.

Greylorn

Fair enough, far right-wing godbothering religious bigot it is.

[uwot]

I had a pair of relevant certificates lined up, one ligitimate4, another one, Obama's. Anyone with a two-digit IQ could discern the egregious discrepancies in B.O.'s fabricated birth certificate, except pinheads like (Looking out for you!) Bill O'Reilly, who can''t even look down and see his pecker anymore.

What I find hard to believe is that the people 'in charge' couldn't find someone with a legitimate U.S. birth certificate to fill the role of flunky. The Republican party seem to cast that role with ease. (Really, does anyone believe that R Reagan or Bush junior were in control of anything more consequential than their own bedtime?)

[Greylorn Ell]

I see two distinct forms of energy at the fundamental level. All known forms, matter, charge, velocity, gravitational potential, electromagnetic, are time dependent. There is another form that my earlier writings referred to as "raw" energy. The discovery of "dark energy" got me thinking that this is the same as my weakly-defined raw-energy, and needs a deeper understanding.

Dark energy is simply the name given to whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. It quite nicely illustrates how concepts get woven into our understanding, because it is novel(ish). We don't know the cause, but we are very quick to ascribe 'substancehood' to it. I appreciate that your concept of 'raw energy' is weak, but all it has to do to be the same as dark energy, is to cause the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If that isn't what you originally invoked raw energy for, they are not the same thing.

I believe that they are the same thing. I cannot make a case for it because it never occurred to me to explore the properties of my "raw energy." I'd pretty much given up writing, so why bother? The empirical discovery of dark energy got me thinking once again. I realized that I had developed a powerful core physics concept via nothing more than metaphysical speculation. Figured that it was time to get back to work.

I currently see my raw energy, dark energy, and the aether, as equivalent names for the same thing, the stuff of which the universe is created. By whatever name we choose, this is a primeval energy form that is not time dependent.

The foregoing notwithstanding, I think the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the appearance of a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. As you say, call it what you will.

Your approach is typical of passive philosophical thinkers, for whom the name of a thing is somehow important. IMO names are important when they can be tied to a concept, and when that concept differs from others.

I ignore people who fancy that quibbling with words amounts to useful thought. I adore those very few who can distill real concepts from the words, then discuss the merits of those concepts.

My notion of the aether is not Big Al's, and I regard notions of the "quantum vacuum" in much the same high regard as roadkill skunk meat. To makes sense of my opinions you'd probably want to peruse John Schulenberger's paper, Isomorphisms of Hyperbolic Systems and the Aether.

I could only find it at Taylor and Francis Online, who'd charge me 28 quid to download it. So I didn't.

I got through a university by living cheaply and working highway construction crews during the summer time, because I valued knowledge and was willing to pay for it. Since then I've spent thousands of dollars in pursuit of knowledge, plus the time to assimilate it that could have been spent making more money. I've come to realize that most of the people I'm talking to on this and other forums are children whose parents paid their way through school. Many of them still live with their parents. They've never paid much of a price for their limited knowledge, and value it less than I do.

Someone too cheap to pay 28 quid for an insight will be doomed to life without insights. That's the price of a good steak dinner and a bottle of passable California wine. Within a day, the wine turns to piss, and the steak becomes shit. An insight will be with you forever.

(Tip: some kinds of beavers like a nice dinner. Having a few insights at your disposal gives you something to maybe talk about, so as to distinguish the compatibility of a beaver.)

Why am I not surprised that you would not waste a pence on material that you would not likely understand, and would require you to readjust your comfortable, already paid-for opinions if you did understand it?

That's as far as I've been able to go, thinking alone. John died and didn't like me enough to return with assistance.

Well, you don't expend a lot of energy on being likeable. As you say, it doesn't matter what physicists call it; the idea that matter is some form of lump in a field goes back at least to Lord Kelvin, who thought particles might be 'knots'. (The idea that matter is some stuff that is radically different to it's perceptible qualities goes back to Anaximander, nearly 600 years BC.) Einstein, at least in 1920, believed:
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter."

I've found that being unlikeable is a useful trait for someone who does not want to spend time and energy dealing with nitwits, fools, and the dreadful glut of people who are attached to whatever they've been taught in school. People who like you do not want to hurt your feelings, so will never tell you when they think that you're F.O.S. Those who dislike you will not hesitate to discredit your ideas, so one can possibly learn from them-- unless, of course, they dislike you because they are stupid or unimaginative and resent those who might not be.

Schulenberger was a good example. He did not like me, and regarded me as too stupid to be interesting. But I'd show up at his back door on some late afternoons with a six-pack of very good beer and some Cuban cigars, chat, ask him stupid questions, and come away knowing things that I'd have been unable to learn from any other man. (I paid consicerably more than 28 quid for my copy of his paper.)

I appreciate your knowledge of physics history. I proposed the notion of aether knots in my book, unaware at the time that Lord Kelvin had already developed the concept. I'm not embarrassed to have trodden in his buried footsteps, and believe that his concept should be reconsidered. Back than, we did not have the knowledge or mathematical tools to pursue William Thomson's ideas further.

Big Al's 1920s quote is, IMO, mistaken.

But how can the great thinkers of physics possibly not be mistaken in many areas? Their ideas led to research, knowledge, and more thinking by others that could not have happened without their previous insights.

Whether it is quantum fields, quantum vacuums, 'energy' fields, aether or unicorn tears, the simplest assumption is that there exists 'something' with 'mechanical' properties that the universe is made of. I suspect that Schulenberger's paper, as it has 'aether' in the title, is some variation of that theme, and that it expresses his own choice of shape and topology in mathematics that would mean little or nothing to me.

Your comment about quantum whatsits is correct, and seems to serve no purpose other than to demonstrate that you read pop-science magazines.

You are totally incorrect about Schulenberger's paper. He focused entirely upon mathematical rigor in early 20th century physics, and was uninterested in theories of any sort. He said that we do not know enough physics to develop a responsible theory about the beginnings. He never heard my theory of the day because he did not abide such things, regarding them as frivolous. John's paper merely proved that the famous Michelson-Morley experiment could not possibly have detected the aether. Implying-- it may exist.

The quantum vacuum, at least according to my understanding of one version, is a sort of Copenhagen fudge, in that it doesn't nail itself to any particular ontology, but describes the field strength. (For people who don't like maths, this, I think, represents it very well: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theo ... nding.html ) As I have said in other threads, the same is true of general relativity; it describes the action of gravity as though there was a substance called space-time, it doesn't follow that there is. Since then (or even since Newton's hypotheses non fingo) any 'field' doesn't have to equate to any 'thing', it is simply the area in which behaviour of a particular type can be observed.

This paragraph explains as well as any why a productive conversation between you and I is but wishful thinking. While we both know some physics, you think like a philosopher. I think like an engineer.

And perhaps I've totally misunderstood you here and missed your point entirely. I like your term, "Copenhagen fudge," in the brownest sense of fudge. Field strength of what? Do I even care?

And your comment about GR makes sense as well. I do not believe that time exists in any absolute sense. Space does. Thus, space-time is what, quasi-real? I currently understand "field" to be a property of a space. But who cares?

If I've understood your comments correctly, there is no useful way to discern reality from your perspective. Although I know that the matter/energy forms from which my house and body are constructed are manifestations of something more subtle, I believe in the absolute reality of that something and will not stoop to reducing that reality to linguistic babble. That's just me. You go ahead and think as you will.

I regard beon as the product of a distinct space, same as energy. Since both must exist within another space, beon-space and energy-space may be regarded as manifolds within the space that contains them.

So is your theory dual aspect, as in the title of the thread, or is it pluralist, postulating at least 3 entities: space, energy/matter and beon.

I reread what I wrote and do not know how I can make it more clear. Attach whatever label you please to my theory, before understanding it. Labels are for those who want to fit things into their current opinion base. Beon Theory does not fit into any belief system or opinion base.

Your take on the nature of beon is not correct. Your definition is about one level higher than necessary. You're poking around for beavers atop their dam. At least you're poking.

Tragically, I have not had the success poking for beavers that I would wish.

Tragedy is avoidable. Many beavers like to dance, as can be seen from films of courtship rituals in the wild. The dance will be judged, so best practice it well beforehand. This may take years.

I do not know the mechanisms for interactions between beon and energy. I do not know how my will to stick a finger up my ass actually causes my brain to accomplish that overtly simple, but extremely complex task. If I knew that, I'd know how beon interacts with brain, and all would be well until the next-gen CIA learns how to utilize that science.

You're in good company; Einstein couldn't explain the mechanism by which matter warps space-time: ironic given his aversion to spooky action at a distance. No matter; the field equations describe the action of gravity better than Newton. If you want physicists to take an interest in beon theory, you will need to find some phenomenon that it accounts for, scientifically, I should add, that current mathematics fails to do.

Einstein did not explain any mechanisms. He devised mathematical forms that related other mathematical forms to one another.

Beon Theory explains why matter warps space, because Beon Theory is not about the mathematics. It is entirely about the mechanisms behind physical phenomena.

Physics has both theoretical (Einstein, Feynman) and experimental people. I'm a theorist, and not a particularly competent mathematician (mainly from lack of practice). To do something scientifically requires both theory, a mathematical model, and then experimental validation. Although sometimes the experiments come first, as with Galileo's inclined planes.

For Beon Theory to engage any interest, it probably needs to catch the attention of someone like Penrose, one of the few who appreciates the unsolved problems (consciousness, and a universe beginning at Entropy 0) that Beon Theory so easily explains.

Among the phenomena that Beon Theory accounts for are:
1. Handedness in humans.
2. The real results of split-brain experiments.
3. Hypnosis.
4. An IQ distribution that is structurally independent of parents' intelligence.
5. Human consciousness.
6. Psychic phenomena.
7. Evidence for reincarnation.
8. Creation of the universe.
9. Quantum mechanics.
10. Dark energy
11. Gravity
12. Various problems in biological evolution, such as:
a. How do useful genes develop, given the 1.4 x 10exp-542 probability of a small, 900
base-pair human gene assembling according to Darwinian principles?
b. The "c-vaue" enigma.
c. Etc. but why bother listing them?

Of course you don't know that, because you are too poor or too cheap to buy my book, or unwilling to sell off a few comic books to pay for something that you will not be able to comprehend. That's all okay. I'm coming to realize that trying to interest philosophers in unique ideas that involve physics is like trying to teach hamsters in a little wheel to run backwards.

Clearly I'm wasting my time on forums of any sort; I've tried them all--- religious, physics, and now finally philosophy. People who post their thoughts on forums are rarely there to improve either their thoughts or knowledge. I have found a place where I can exchange ideas with a small number of thoughtful individuals who are seeking better explanations, rather than expound their favorite doctrines. Even better, the place has a way to exclude persistent jackasses who have nothing constructive to offer. So this will be my last post for quite a long time.

Thank you, Uwot, for the opportunity to converse. You are an agreeable and intelligent person, and I wish that we could become friends. Study up on beaver ponds. Best regards.
Greylorn

[Wyman]

I ignore people who fancy that quibbling with words amounts to useful thought. I adore those very few who can distill real concepts from the words, then discuss the merits of those concepts.

...

People who post their thoughts on forums are rarely there to improve either their thoughts or knowledge. I have found a place where I can exchange ideas with a small number of thoughtful individuals who are seeking better explanations, rather than expound their favorite doctrines. Even better, the place has a way to exclude persistent jackasses who have nothing constructive to offer. So this will be my last post for quite a long time.

Greylorn

I agree with the above and I hope you stick around. I think the problem is, there needs to be common ground for discussion between those of us who want to discuss philosophical issues and those who want to discuss physics. I can't discuss physics with a physicist unless he explains a particular concept in ordinary language that is relevant to my area of interest. I used to talk Shakespeare with a math professor of mine and found the discussions refreshing and interesting; but I was intimidated by the idea of discussing mathematics with him, other than the subject he was teaching, since he was far advanced.

On the other hand, those of us who have read a good deal of philosophy need to be able to discuss particularly 'philosophical' concepts in ordinary, nontechnical language as well. But those who lean towards physics have to actually be interested in those concepts or they will find it a waste of time. You seem to be interested in consciousness and I for one found your comments in this thread extremely interesting.