Saturday, June 27, 2009
From a cultural viewpoint we have an analogy with the intelligibility of physics as to if it is based on metaphysical or physical principles in interpretation of the models we design and construct. It is also a problem of abstract and encoding and identity of sentient beings in the forum of debate, internally and with others. Thus we have a philosophy that concerns itself with messages and translations and the background, what its visibility is, to the event horizons of our experience. On the level of debate we may distinguish between the poetic and the narritive and which is a proper or false sense of the ground of the world or self. In this sense in the philosophychatforum of the science section we may say that Mac does describe a potentially good point as to his winning of the debate with Lincoln. Those who have tried to counter his points as with the points of others in this frame of mind will assume there is no higher generalization of the physics- separate the idea for example that there is a great divide between the idea of special relativity and the general relativities and arbritarilly choose what in the background of observation and experience is to be considered known and unknowable, relative and absolute. If they seem not to lose and arguement they push the subject away with claims that it makes no sense or is not handled in a business like manner. Of course there can be errors but the point out of them is set up that it cannot go both ways so the blind recourse of method is to isolate and bury those not in the shared world view of supposed peers. coberst on the forum formally raises this issue and in the doing so- as if it does not matter that such a discussion is placed under the questionable coloration of metaphysics that they prove the wisdom of the young turks by the allowing of free speech and exchange of ideas. Are they aware of the underlying poetry of their narrative responses or are they inherently mean spirited- and as coberst asks is this a social effect?
What this amounts to then, is that in the internet and blogosphere we have this interace of personal and anonymous questioning of our identity and the question of its fundamental nature as linked or not, locally or in some abstract extension. Moreover, in Lincoln's response as to the equation of energy and citing of Einstein's equation, there is no deep understanding as energy as it relates to these background, or phaneron questions of space. My group modeling for example, a TOE that exists in the dark side as if unseen dark matter (that is Lincoln's term for the phillosphy part of the forum) is not treated with equations of energy itself which of course may be limited to the experience and explanation of the problems of the expanding universe or any such expansions. (indeed this problem will be encountered also by some cosmologies discussed on the forum by Marshall of those who would try to build physics from the bottom up, geometrically.) A major new discovery of spin magnetics between atoms could have been predicted as a real experiment by my view of the structure of atoms and such explanations. In a sense on the atomic scale these are links between a multi universe I had styled as Lincolms.
Despite the reduction of emotional content we encounter in the internet the emotions are there implicit in the design metaphysics of language and our biological design. It follows that the exclusion of individuals unjustified as well the exclusion of whole races and cultures of the third world implies that these people, demeaned or deamonized, after all have real human personalities which they cannot admit exist.
While it may be wise not to follow some posters with opinnions down the rabbit hole I find it most ironic that in matters of how cosmology relates to the biology as fundamental that the administration are entertaining the idea and debating it when for all this time the issue I raised and no one questioned or took seriously, scandalously, what is still there in the philosophy section long ago- is it that no theory matters if it does not come from their special (if fictional) sense of their in group? Can they only rate a scientific theory if it originates only from their thinking and traditions. Jew science is irrelavant says Hitler.
We of course are not brash enough to say that ideas of natural law are guarenteed by the mind of God, as Berkely argued and that part of his thinking most elect to disreguard as unmodern. This is really not the case from the naturalistic intelligent design sense of things- at least not a proven one short of death and further experience. A great unified black gap then for the universe in general. In questions of consciousness it is more like we are the Mind of God naturally, or a part of it - if such distinctions of scale mean anything. But for the design of the brain and its interpretation this idea is our relation to a phaneron a step beyond the reduction into concept of mind or matter.
We might cheer up the neurologists from the Israeli study that between the synaspses or the long term memory the production of protiens are required. But does this say that our memories are a matter of substances? Will any such structures give us memories or can the design itself be a memory? Will the recollection destroy the matter and configuration of the memory? Clearly we should expect a lower correspondence in the design between the cognitive and material intelligible universe as the state of things and the mind. By the way in the question of is there nothing? I actually saw one of the new debaters, a scientist, saying that nothingness is a thing. Nothingness is a void or abstraction in which our memories as mind is stored and is not a thing in that sort of reductionist stance.
If we are to entertain the idea of dark energy/matter then clearly the abstract void is what our ideas are grounded within and so guarenteed as being (not something nor empty). The biochemistry of the void is more than the ideas of say string physics- it is also the mechanisms and aspirations of what we will one day come to understand as dark fluid. But perhaps such scientific studies are enough to comfort the materialists and confirm they have not personality anyway and so justify it. Perhaps in the enguaging them even at this blog distance I in a back handed way help to stimulate their existence as humans. Perhaps if I were without soul it would be a small matter to prevent their existence in retrospect but then we come back to having to deal with our isolation and lonliness instead of creativiness, they work their own black heart gaps.