What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 5281 - 5300 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

May 25, 2015 - 05:24pm PT

But a quark is not made up of stuff, rather every equation posits quarks as "fractional energy charges." Why, because a quark is simply a point "with no physical distribution," or "no physical extent." In other words, there is no "thing" called a quark that HAS a "fractional energy charge." A quark IS a fractional energy charge and no thing else. So if particles are reducible to quarks, and quarks are not "things," but merely energy, then the notion that reality rests on a solid material base is not true.

JL is to physics as the National Enquirer is to journalism.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 25, 2015 - 07:58pm PT

MH2, which part of that info do you disagree with? Are you saying that quarks DO have physical extent? Where did you ever hear as much. Have you also heard that quarks have no structure? What do these facts mean to you?

JL

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

May 25, 2015 - 09:21pm PT

MH2, which part of that info do you disagree with?

The part where I should accept that you understand what you are talking about.

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

May 25, 2015 - 09:31pm PT

JL is to physics as the National Enquirer is to journalism

IMO this does an injustice to the National Enquirer, which is more accurate than other such publications.

John's infatuation with things reducing to "no physical extent" results from his ongoing attempt to elicit fundamental theory relating meditator's no-thing to virtual phenomena at the quantum level. His carpool of prodigies seem receptive to this as well. I think this is folly and reminiscent of attempts years ago to scientifically validate ectoplasm, but stranger things have happened, and if he and his cohorts can actually perform this feat I will be the first to offer congratulations.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 25, 2015 - 10:03pm PT

MH2, which part of that info do you disagree with?

The part where I should accept that you understand what you are talking about.
-

That's a dodge, MH2, and you know it, because you did not answer the questions, you simply attacked the messenger once again.

So let me put it this way: It has been stated clearly and concisely that most particles are composed of quarks and that quarks "have no physical extent or distribution." Can we argue this point? No.

What's more, quarks have no structure. They are indivisible because they are dimensionless. Can we argue this point. Not with any evidence.

And what, pray tell, is it that MH2 believe I - or anyone else, can simply not understand about this. If MH2 has a specific about where the above is wrong, kindly state it and the source.

One friend quoted this: Quarks, leptons (e.g. electrons, neutrinos) and the fundamental bosons (e.g. photons, W and Z bosons) have no known substructure, and they are (today) considered to be point-size (zero size). For the electron there are no signs of any substructure down to about 10-18 m.

Do you disagree with this, MH2? Are you sayng that quarks DO have a known substructure, and if so, what is it and on what empirical data are you saying as much?

And this: "My quick answer to the question "What are quarks made of?" is "nothing we know of" (and the case is the same for the electron).

Do you disagree with this, MH2. What part do you think I misunderstand? ("All of it" is a non-answer, of course).

And this: A photon is just as much of a particle as an Electron is EXCEPT that it has no invariant mass. (Commonly known as "rest mass") Both photons and electrons have particle-like and wave-like properties. There is nothing that says a particle MUST be matter.

Do you disagree with this, MH2? My sense is that you and a few others feel that a particle MUST be matter? What empirical evidence is this actually based on?

Lastly if quarks "have no physical extent or distribution," no substructure, are dimensionless, are (today) considered to be point-size (zero size), and have no rest mass, what, dear MH2, is the "stuff" of quarks? What aspect of a quark are you calling material? And if there is no mass or material involved, how does the word "thing" apply?

JL

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

May 26, 2015 - 07:05am PT

I respect your experience with meditation JL. Keep working on the physics.

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2015 - 08:09am PT

You've never seen a Quark so what do you even know .....

No thing ..... muahahaha ....

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

May 26, 2015 - 08:23am PT

^^^^^^^

Heh.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2015 - 09:12am PT

So let me put it this way: It has been stated clearly and concisely that most particles are composed of quarks and that quarks "have no physical extent or distribution." Can we argue this point?

No.

You're wrong.

Where, Dingus, and show your work. But seriously, are you saying that quarks DO have physical extent and physical distrubution? Dimensionality? Substructure? If so, what, and where are you reading such wu?

And so far as quarks having rest mass, "mass" in this context is NOT material or stuff, but electricity.

Say the experts: According to their results, the up quark weighs approximately 2 mega electron volts (MeV), which is a unit of energy, the down quark weighs approximately 4.8 MeV, and the strange quark weighs in at about 92 MeV.

When you hold that "a unit of energy" is a thing, is stuff, you are merely fooling your own self. Remember, a quark has no dimensionality, no substructure, no physical extent. In short, there is no such "thing" as a quark that HAS 2 mega electron volts, say. That's the part where people are getting lost and still hanging onto the promise that a quark has stuff that has electrical properties.

But verily, there are only the properties.

There's nothing below us but energy.

In short, causal reductionism and materialism simply dissolves into MeV's.

In experiential language, there is no separte, objective-independent "mind." Mind is no-thing, known only by it's content, which all arises and dissolves into energy.

JL

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-05-masses-common-quarks-revealed.html#jCp

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2015 - 10:45am PT

Moose, when you hear the word, "no-thing," what are you picturing in your mind? What does "no-thing" mean to you, in terms of your own self-definition?

In broader terms, to you is there any difference between a "thing," and material/stuff?

In what way is a dimensionless, zero-size electrical phenomenon a thing?

JL

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

May 26, 2015 - 12:46pm PT

This conversation should be on a PhD oral exam for a graduating physicist.

I can imagine the professor saying "Ok, now here is a lengthy comment on virtual particles by a certain well-known rock climber. Do you think he knows what he's talking about?"

(Laughter among all present)

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

May 26, 2015 - 03:39pm PT

What does "no-thing" mean to you, in terms of your own self-definition?

Quite an accurate read. In terms of my own self-definition.

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

May 26, 2015 - 03:48pm PT

Someone missed the whole point of E=MCsq

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

May 26, 2015 - 04:33pm PT

What does "no-thing" mean to you, in terms of your own self-definition?

My own self-definition is that I am John, an elderly ex-climber, who dabbles in mathematics. Thus, no-thing means I am none of those things.

How can that be?

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2015 - 05:03pm PT

Everything is already there.

The gross materialist can't "see" anything except himself ..

Then the gross materialist projects his own stupid self onto the world outside of himself.

That is why he's blind ......

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2015 - 05:04pm PT

Largo, it is a "thing" because is interacts with other "things".

I ran this past my science friends. Their question: What, in a quark, besides energy, do you believe is interacting with the things "out there?" Answer: There is no "thing" interacting with the world external to the quark.

Where people are still stumbling is that no-thing is not the same as nothing. Nothing is total absence. No-thing is a phenomenon known only by its effect on external stuff, including measuring devices, while containing no stuff, dimensionality, or physical extent itself.

And the interesting thing about massless particles like photons is:

"... the spacetime distance between their start and end points is zero in all frames of reference (in fact, spacetime distances are invariant under changes between frames of reference, which is in fact a fundamental point of special relativity). However, the distance a massless particle is observed to travel (and hence for how long it travels) is entirely dependent on the point of view of the observer."

The mistake I believe people like John are making is in believing that I am presenting my take on any of this, whereas this "real" science sees it differently. I would simply point out that invitations to provide different takes on any of the principal notions per No-Thing have not been provided. As my friend said, "Don't conflate the effects of a phenomenon with the inherent nature of same." Common sense is saying if a photon can push a sail, "it," the photon has to be a thing. The scientists I know say this is entirely mistaken.

A bigger question: Why do you think that aspects of reality are dependent on point of view. And do you think point of "view," and point, would result in the same reality if there was no sentience "viewing" from said point?

Put differently, materialists and easter thought insist that there is no stand-alone sentience separate from things, but the easterners also say there are not things separate from sentience. Neither things nor yet sentience "creates" the other. Both are interdependent.

Go figure...

JL

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

May 26, 2015 - 05:34pm PT

Jgill: My own self-definition is that I am John, an elderly ex-climber, who dabbles in mathematics. Thus, no-thing means I am none of those things. How can that be?

Are these statements accurate, complete, definitive? Are you any less of any of what they appear to indicate? Are you any more than what they appear to indicate? Do these exist independently, on their own, without connections or conveyances with any other so-called “things?”

You are not any of those words. You are not any of those definitions because I don’t think you can define any to those terms fully and accurately. You are not any of those references (of the words) because all references are only things that we can point to (but we can not say what they are). There is a break between the symbols, the referents, and the meaning of the two.

So what are you at your core? What is your essence? Assuming you have consciousness of an infinite environment as the rest of seem to claim, what ARE you not? What do you know (not believe theoretically or what someone else has said) that exists outside of your consciousness?

How could it possibly be that you are “John, an elderly ex-climber, who dabbles in mathematics.” I’d bet your children, wife, and friends would say much more. Would they be wrong?

You’re either simple-minded, or you're trolling. I think it’s the latter.

allapah

climber

May 26, 2015 - 05:38pm PT

They're enough to heisenberg the potentials in the synapses.

Pasang Dawa Lama balking on K2.

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

May 26, 2015 - 08:54pm PT

You’re either simple-minded, or you're trolling. I think it’s the latter

It's not what you think, but what you know, and I know you know what to think.

So what are you at your core? What is your essence? Assuming you have consciousness of an infinite environment as the rest of seem to claim, what ARE you not? What do you know (not believe theoretically or what someone else has said) that exists outside of your consciousness?

I hope you eventually find your way out of your existential labyrinth.

The mistake I believe people like John are making is in believing that I am presenting my take on any of this, whereas this "real" science sees it differently. I would simply point out that invitations to provide different takes on any of the principal notions per No-Thing have not been provided. As my friend said . . . (JL)

And why NOT issue invitations to those who might have differing opinions per no-thing? Doesn't sound very scientific. You and your prodigies obviously assume these topics are closed issues, wrapped up with pretty bows; now let's move on to meditative ectoplasm.